Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Royal Assent

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified Her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Housing (Scotland) Act 1988
2. Foreign Marriage (Amendment) Act 1988

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RIVER HUMBER (BURCOM OUTFALL) BILL [Lords]

PORT OF TYNE BILL [Lords]

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT (PENALTY FARES) BILL [Lords]

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

AVON LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT BILL [Lords]

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL

Orders read for consideration of motions.

To be considered on Thursday 10 November at Seven o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

Housing Starts

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will give details of the number of housing starts in the north-west region between 1979 and 1987.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Trippier): One hundred and sixty-four thousand seven hundred dwellings were started in the north west in the nine years 1979 to 1987. In 1987 there were 14,500 private sector starts—more than 2,000 more than in 1979.

Mr. Lloyd: Will the Minister confirm that in every year under this Government the rate of housing starts in the north west has been as low as two thirds of what it was in the last full year of the Labour Government? The Government claim, perhaps truthfully, that the private sector has made up for the public sector in the south-east, but that is massively untrue of the north west.
Does the Minister accept that every credible survey of housing—the Duke of Edinburgh, the Institute of Housing and the local authorities' inquiries—has said that there is massive under-investment nationally in housing, particularly in the north-west? When will the Government do something serious about the approaching housing crisis in that region?

Mr. Trippier: What really matters is that the total stock, public and private sector, has increased since 1979. The number of households in the north-west increased in the last years on record—1981 to 1986—by 2·3 per cent., compared with an increase in dwelling stock of 60,000, or 2·4 per cent. Therefore, the growth in dwelling stock has more than kept pace with the growth in the number of households, which is the most important point. In the same period, the population in the north-west declined slightly.

Mr. Burt: My hon. Friend will know of the need in the north-west, as in many other parts of the country, for low-cost rental accommodation. Bearing in mind the Government's justifiable concern about the way in which some local authorities manage their housing stock, may I ask what the Government are doing to boost housing associations, which greatly contribute to low-cost rental housing? Will more be done for them in the north-west?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend will know that, in the Housing Bill, we are directing more resources to the housing corporations, and thus to housing associations. He should draw comfort, as I am sure do many Conservative Members, from the substantial increase made available by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer yesterday—a rise of £1·328 billion by 1991, which is 80 per cent. above this year's estimated outturn.

Mr. Alton: Does the Minister agree that one way of providing more homes for people on waiting lists would be to liberate under-occupied properties? The key to that is to build more sheltered accommodation for the ever-increasing number of elderly people in our region. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree, based on his recent visit to Liverpool, that the key to good management of properties is to hand them over to tenants, and that a good way of doing that is through housing co-operatives?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman is certainly right. The Government are keen on housing co-operatives, and at the moment we are studying the under-occupation of dwellings. We need to address our minds to that problem. The current review on homelessness will be a major feature in the decisions that we shall eventually reach.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Will my hon. Friend pay a well-deserved tribute to the stirling work of the Abbeyfields Society, which has just opened another charming home in Lancaster and is hoping shortly to build one at Garstang?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to concur with my hon. Friend. The Abbeyfields housing association is incredibly well known, especially in the region from which my hon. Friend and I come and represent. I am delighted to put on record my praise for that organisation.

Housing Bill

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received on the Housing Bill since July.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): I and my colleagues have received a number of representations from hon. Members, interested bodies and the general public on a wide range of matters relating to the Housing Bill.

Mr. Winnick: Why are the Government apparently so determined to reverse the decision of another place that council tenants should be balloted to allow them to decide whether their property should be included in a housing action trust? Why should council tenants be denied the right to decide on this issue, and why are the Government so afraid of democracy?

Mr. Ridley: I have never quite understood why the Labour party seems so determined to whip up a campaign of misinformation about a matter that is of pure benefit to tenants, who will have a large amount of public money put at their disposal to improve the rotten houses in which many of them have to live.

Mr. Heddle: Has my right hon. Friend received any evidence at all that some Labour-controlled councils are using municipal harassment to discourage tenants from eventually opting out of their control by threatening not to carry out repairs if they do vote to opt out? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to deplore such tactics, and will he take action against authorities that use those tactics?

Mr. Ridley: I have heard all sorts of rumours. If Labour councils want to be seen as sensible and fair and want to provide for their people, they must try to maintain higher standards of accuracy about what the Government are trying to do.

Dr. Cunningham: If the Government's housing proposals are so good for tenants, why is the Secretary of State so reluctant to let tenants decide for themselves? Is it not significant that in a leaflet of proposals about the balloting of tenants the Government fail to say or deliberately omit the fact, that if tenants do not vote they will be counted as voting in favour? What bigger gerrymandering of a vote can there be?

Mr. Ridley: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on scraping back. We hope that he will spend many years on the Opposition Benches, asking questions such as the one that he has just asked.
In reply to his first point, I suggest that the time to debate any amendments made in another place is the next time that the Bill comes before the House.
The hon. Gentleman's second point is entirely separate. He knows full well that any tenant who does not wish to go with the majority who are exercising their right to choose a new landlord has a right to go back to the local authority for a direct tenancy.

Mr. Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that when the miasma of distortion mounted by the Opposition on the Housing Bill is finally revealed, most people will welcome the Bill, not only because of the substantial

resources in the form of increased housing benefit, but also for the increased protection that private tenants will enjoy in future?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is right. The attitude of the Opposition is beginning to raise questions about whether they are interested in the benefit and welfare of tenants, many of whom have real problems, or are simply trying to stir up opposition to try to make some sort of political capital, the point of which I do not see.

Conduct of Local Authority Business

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in response to the publication of the White Paper on the conduct of local authority business.

The Minister for Local Government (Mr. John Selwyn Gummer): My right hon. Friend has received 65 letters from Members of Parliament, local authorities, councillors and interested organisations, commenting on the White Paper.

Mr. Banks: Is the Minister aware that the White Paper is nothing more than a long essay on Government hypocrisy? How dare the Prime Minister go to Poland and start lecturing the Poles about freedom when she is dismantling local democracy? For how much longer are these attacks on local authorities going to continue? Is the Minister aware that no Government this century have sought to interfere in the affairs of local authorities as much as this Government. have done? When will he start defending, instead of destroying local democracy?

Mr. Gummer: The greatest damage to local authorities and local democracy has been caused by Labour councils run not for the benefit of ratepayers or for those who are in need but for the benefit of the furtherance of extreme Left-wing Marxist ideas. Any hon. Member who can make that kind of comment after the revelations about Brent today should be ashamed of himself.

Mr. McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend, when looking at the responses that he has received on the conduct of local government business, bear in mind what happened on Cannock Chase district council when I was a member of it? The then chairman of the council lost his seat in the May election, but remained as chairman until the annual meeting. In between there was another meeting of the council and he used his casting vote, despite not being a member of the council. Will my right hon. Friend consider whether that has any relevance to the conduct of local authority business?

Mr. Gummer: The conduct of local authorities is best seen when people obey the rules and carry them out and do not try to make party political propaganda out of following the rules.

Dr. Cunningham: Before we have too many sanctimonious lectures about local government from the Tories, will the Minister comment on the conduct of the Conservative-controlled Westminster city council, which sold cemeteries for 15p, which are now being advertised for sale at £5·5 million, and which is not charging for refuse collection from commercial organisations, which


the district auditor has quite clearly said is unlawful? If the Minister has something to say about standards of conduct, why does he not look a little closer to home?

Mr. Gummer: I am willing to condemn unlawful action from wherever it comes. I only hope that the hon. Gentleman will condemn his hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who is a Labour Front-Bench spokesman on the Health Service, for refusing to pay taxes, which are lawfully levied, and encouraging other persons to do the same.

Factories (Sale and Letting)

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a statement on the sale and letting of factories by the Commission for the New Towns in 1987–88.

Mr. Trippier: During 1987–88 the Commission for the New Towns made good progress in the letting of vacant factory space and with the implementation of its programme of property sales, including the sale of factories.

Mr. Hind: Has my hon. Friend had an opportunity to read the article in the Sunday Express of 16 October entitled, "Skelmersdale Bounces Back in New Towns Bonanza"? Is that not a major tribute to the Commission for the New Towns, which, over the past two and a half years, has let or sold 3·5 million sq ft of empty factory space in the new town and introduced 78 new firms, with a parallel reduction of unemployment of more than 2,100 over the past two years? Is it not significant that Skelmersdale, like many other new towns, is represented by Conservative Members of Parliament?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend has made a significant point. Yes, I saw the article and I thought that it was a tribute to the Commission for the New Towns. I had the opportunity to meet the members of the board yesterday, and they particularly remarked on the significant change round in the industrial situation in Skelmersdale, which is to be commended. I have seen what has been done. It is truly remarkable that there is hardly any vacant factory space available to let in that area.

Mr. Conway: Does my hon. Friend feel that there is growing conflict between the activities of the commission with regard to factory lettings and those of English Estates? Are we not approaching the time when one or other of the organisations should be subsumed?

Mr. Trippier: No. Their briefs are entirely different. Obviously, there is a finality to the work of the Commission for the New Towns. That is enshrined in legislation. I was discussing that matter with the commission only yesterday. English Estates, however, has a very important regional role.

Westminster City Council (Freehold Sales)

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will exercise his powers under section 22(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1982 to require the Audit Commission to direct the holding of an extraordinary audit into the accounts of Westminster city council relating to the disposal of the freeholds of 32 Smith square and 67 Tufton street, London, SW1.

Mr. Ridley: No, Sir.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: How else will we find out the truth? Does the Secretary of State know that, despite being pressed by Westminster councillors, Lord McAlpine, treasurer of the Conservative party, refuses to divulge any information about that transaction? What is he trying to hide? Why does he not let us have the figures or let us have sight of the documents so that we can stand the allegations up or the Conservative party can knock them down? All we want is the truth. Will the Secretary of State go to Lord McAlpine and ask him to publish the documents in the public interest? As a Westminster ratepayer, I want to know what is happening.

Mr. Ridley: I am delighted to give the hon. Gentleman such information as I have, including the figures. At the beginning of this decade Westminister sold quite a number of freeholds to sitting tenants. The freehold, plus the lease, is worth more combined than the two separately. The council's policy was to obtain 70 per cent. of the gain that arose from combining the lease with the freehold.
In the case of Smith square, the council sold a freehold valued at £60,000 for the sum of £1·325 million—a profit for Westminster ratepayers of about £1·25 million.
As for Transport house next door, the council sold the freehold of the Labour party's headquarters to the Transport and General Workers Union for £2·25 million—a profit for Westminster ratepayers of about £2 million. In the two transactions, the Transport and General Workers Union probably made a far bigger profit than Conservative Central Office on the sale of the lease. I quite understand why the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock), who is sponsored by that union, has not raised this particular question. He must know what a bonanaza that union has made by its very wise purchase of the freehold.
I can assure the House that the district auditor will give his views on whether the original transactions were made at the proper market value, as all those concerned believe they were.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that trying to score cheap party points off the sale of one property in Smith square is really bringing politics to an all-time low if Opposition Members do not admit to profits being made by their friends in the trade unions?

Mr. Ridley: I make no complaint about either transaction. I believe that they were both at proper market value, I am delighted that both purchasers and many others managed to take advantage of the rise in the property market later on. However, I believe that the Labour party should stop being so partial and selective.

Mr. Rooker: The Secretary of State is not telling the whole truth; he is misinforming the House. Is it not a lapse in accepted standards of conduct of public administration in this country when the governing party conspires with a local authority in a property transaction which, as the Secretary of State did not say in his reply, leads to the governing party making a profit of £2·4 million at the expense of ratepayers? That is what actually happened as a result of the transaction in 1983, which is not the transaction about which the right hon. Gentleman told the House. The governing party of this country made that profit. No other political party or trade union has been involved in making a profit further down the line.

Mr. Ridley: That really was lame. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that there was an interval between the two transactions, during which property values rose. He knows that the TGWU has made just the same profit over the same period, although it has not yet chosen to cash it in.
Mr. Speaker, if you are not able to call the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who has been rising to intervene, let me say that I would ask him to withdraw the allegation that he made in his speech on Monday—column 728 of Hansard—that the sale of the freehold for Conservative Central Office was a scandal. I have now made it clear that it was not a scandal, and I hope that he will do the decent thing and withdraw that remark.

Homelessness (Rural Areas)

Mr. Matthew Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what action he proposes to take in the light of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report concerning homelessness in rural areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimates he has made of housing need in rural areas.

Mr. Ridley: I have received this valuable report, which is now being studied. My officials will be meeting representatives of the association shortly to discuss the report's findings. On 5 July I published consultation papers on planning and low-cost housing in rural areas. I hope that the hon. Gentlemen have studied these.

Mr. Taylor: The Secretary of State may be aware that homelessness in rural areas in the south has nearly doubled since 1979. Does he agree that he sold the homeless down the river by yesterday's announcement that the Department of the Environment's housing budget will be slashed by 21 per cent., and that, of the council house receipts which he says he is putting back into housing, a full £500 million will be returned to the Treasury? Did he not wave the white flag to the Chancellor, rather than defend the homeless?

Mr. Ridley: In the hon. Gentleman's local authority, Carrick district council, in the first quarter of 1988, 34 households were accepted as homeless and there were 19 empty council houses. I do not believe that the figures support what he said. I agree that in many rural areas there is a shortage of planning permission to build houses for the people who want them. However, the hon. Gentleman seems to have failed to study the Department of the Environment's spending plans. If he had looked at them, he would have seen the Housing Corporation line rising to £1,328 million in 1991–92—an increase of 80 per cent.—for the provision of new low-cost housing for rent or sale. I will ensure that a sufficient proportion of that is allocated to rural areas.

Mr. Worthington: When will the Secretary of State realise that it is a shortage, not of planning permission for those who want to build houses, but of houses for those who already live in rural areas? The Secretary of State should realise that market forces will not deal with that problem and that it is essential for public action to be

taken to ensure that low-cost houses are built, for purchase or rent, for people who legitimately want to continue to live in rural areas.

Mr. Ridley: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of any knowledge that I have about Clydebank and Milngavie. However, I can tell him that in the south of England the problem is very much one of sites as well as houses. It is no good having more money for more houses if we do not have the plots on which to build them.

Mr. Steen: With regard to housing needs in rural areas, will my right hon. Friend confirm that, where there are properly constituted local district plans—following discussions between parish and district councils that have been confirmed by the Department of the Environment—and where the housing allocation for villages or towns has been reached, if the district council planning committee turns down a development application for more houses because it exceeds the local plan, on appeal his inspectors will be instructed to refuse that appeal because the local plan housing allocation has been exceeded?

Mr. Ridley: I do not instruct inspectors to do anything. They follow the pubished guidance and the published local plan, provided it has been properly adopted and is up to date. In the circumstances that my hon. Friend described, it is unlikely that they would overrule a planning committee on appeal. If such development were not allowed on appeal, it might—indeed, probably would—result in a shortage of houses in some rural areas, which is the cause of the problem.

Mr. David Martin: Is not one of the main problems of the shortage of houses in rural areas that those already living in such areas, and those representing them, strongly object to new proposals for development, while pushing them in the direction of cities that are already well developed, such as Portsmouth?

Mr. Ridley: I am afraid that there is much truth in what my hon. Friend said. Those of us who live in the pressure areas of the country—mainly the south—must come to terms with the dichotomy between the undoubted need for more houses and the need to find places to put them.

Mr. Madden: As the question concerns a report from the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux on the homeless, is the Secretary of State aware that in one fell swoop Bradford Tory council is proposing to stop funding a hostel for homeless—

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is nothing to do with homelessness in rural areas.

Mr. Madden: There is homelessness throughout the rural areas of Yorkshire, and Bradford Tory council is proposing to stop funding that hostel. It is also proposing to withdraw funding from Bradford Citizens' Advice Bureau. As the Secretary of State made an urgent visit to Bradford in the past fortnight to praise the policies of Bradford Tory council, will he make urgent investigations to ensure that funding is made available to keep that hostel open?

Mr. Ridley: I was not expecting rural Bradford to arise from this question, but if Bradford city council is able to avoid wasting money extravagantly on unnecessary things, it will have more money to spend on the homeless and on securing more homes for people who need them.

Mosques

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received from Ealing, North constituency about the operation of the planning regulations as they relate to the construction of mosques in industrial areas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: A number of representations have been received from my hon. Friend and many of his constituents about a proposal to erect a mosque on the site of the former Sadia industrial works in his constituency. The planning issues to which the proposal gave rise were for the local planning authority to determine.

Mr. Greenway: Will my lion. and learned Friend confirm that Ealing council should rescind its mistaken planning permission for a mosque on the Northolt industrial site and find the Dawcodis Bhora community an alternative site? Is he aware that the people of Northolt have unanmously opposed the granting of planning permission for two years, most recently at a meeting attended by 1,000 people, which I chaired? They have written thousands of letters to the council which have been ignored. The council is refusing industrial applications on industrial sites which would bring jobs to the borough, so there is a perceived threat to jobs. Is this not a serious position that is damaging for race relations?

Mr. Howard: I certainly confirm that the powers to revoke planning permission are contained in the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, but the exercise of those powers is, in the first instance, for the local planning authority.

Water Meters

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will make a further statement on the introduction of water meters in private homes.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Colin Moynihan): It is for each water authority and company to decide whether to charge domestic customers by meter, taking into account all the circumstances. The metering trials which are to take place over the next three or four years are intended to help water undertakers take their decisions.

Mr. Atkinson: Does my hon. Friend accept that large numbers of elderly people will be especially grateful to him and to his Department for seeking to end the unfair system of water charges based on rateable values instead of on usage? How much will consumers in the trial areas be expected to pay towards the cost of metering, and does that represent the actual cost of installation?

Mr. Moynihan: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's first comment. Under the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988 the cost of installing meters compulsorily will be paid for by the water authorities or the companies concerned, which will recover those charges from the generality of customers. The customer cannot be charged directly for the compulsory installation of a meter. As my hon. Friend knows, the costs of the current trial programme is being shared between the Government and the water authorities.

Mr. Pike: Does the Minister accept that any move towards metering will involve large capital and ongoing revenue costs for the water authorities? Will that not mean that the water authorities will have to obtain increased income from consumers unless there is a massive saving of water because of the introduction of meters? Who, ultimately, will pay the costs involved with a metering system?

Mr. Moynihan: It is clear that the customers, ultimately, will have to pay those costs. We are considering whether to include a condition in the privatised utility companies' terms of appointment so that they can recover the cost of installing meters through their water charges to customers.

Mr. Barry Fields: Will my hon. Friend reconsider the trial meter areas and his Department's request that a certain number of meters be installed in homes? Does that not run contrary to the intention of the Home Office to reduce the number of people required to enter homes to read meters? The Isle of Wight is the largest meter trial area in the country, with more than 50,000 homes having meters installed and includes the homes of many elderly people. Will my hon. Friend reconsider that policy? Will he also commend the Southern water authority for its excellent consultation process on its trial area scheme?

Mr. Moynihan: It is right that proper care and attention is taken over the vetting of anyone entering a home to install a meter for any utility purpose. I am happy to congratulate the Southern water authority on its excellent work in the Isle of Wight. It has been wise enough to set up a free hot line so that anyone can telephone direct if he or she is in the least bit concerned about the validity of the individual coming through the door to install a meter during the trial period.

Mr. Boyes: Does the Minister recall that during the passage of what is now the Public Utility Transfers and Water Charges Act 1988, he gave an assurance that the views of those taking part in the meter trials would be fully taken into consideration during the consultative process? Will he prepare a report on the problems experienced during that consultative process? Is he aware that, in particular, the people of Normanton have been shabbily treated by the Yorkshire water authority and are highly dissatisfied? Will he visit Normanton so that he can appreciate the deep opposition to the introduction of universal water metering?

Mr. Moynihan: All schemes for approval have detailed proposals on the consultation process undertaken. They are considered in detail by my right hon. Friend before he gives approval for any of the schemes. I am aware of the strength of feeling in south Normanton and I have given an assurance to the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) that, once we have received the formal proposal, I shall go with him to a public meeting in the area to hear the views of local residents on its terms.

Sports Council

Mr. Jessel: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next intends to meet the chairman of the Sports Council.

Mr. Moynihan: I regularly meet the chairman of the Sports Council. The next occasion will be on 10 November.

Mr. Jessel: When my hon. Friend meets the chairman, will he discuss the damage to the goodwill of the Sports Council because of its part funding of a horrible scheme to erect eight floodlight towers, 52 ft high and emitting 66,000 W in the heart of a residential area of Teddington? Richmond-upon-Thames council scheme is so unpopular that two public meetings voted against it, first by 132 to 17 and later by over 400 to 12. Will my hon. Friend invite the chairman of the Sports Council to consider instead an improved playing field for Teddington school, but without any floodlights?

Mr. Moynihan: I am aware of the Teddington school scheme and my hon. Friend's detailed representations on the subject. He will understand that, on planning grounds, I have no locus to intervene, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has already published his decision not to call in. However, I am aware that further local developments of significance to the sports initiative are now available, and I undertake to ensure that the chairman of the Sports Council receives details of my hon. Friend's representations to the House and myself.

Mr. Pendry: The Minister seems to be quite proud of his so-called streamlined Sports Council, but should he not feel quite ashamed that, despite the great successes of our black athletes at the Olympic games, he has chosen this time to snub ethnic minority sports people by removing their representation from his diminished Sports Council?

Mr. Moynihan: I regard that as a deeply offensive reflection on the enormous hard work that has been done by members of the Sports Council, whatever their colour, on behalf of everybody who enjoys participation in sport and the development of excellence. I am glad to say that we in this country do not have positive discrimination in public appointments, based on colour. It is quite right and proper that we put people into the Sports Council who are competent and capable of reflecting the needs of everybody in the community on their merits.

Mr. John Carlisle: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, who is also the chairman of Liverpool football club, will he re-emphasise to him Her Majesty's Government's determination to press ahead with a full membership scheme for soccer at an early opportunity, based on the lines of the successful experiment at Luton Town football club, as being the only real answer to hooliganism and violence which, sadly, still besmirch the game of football?

Mr. Moynihan: Yes, Sir. Those guilty of hooliganism must be stopped from entering football grounds. A full package of measures for inside and outside grounds is needed.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: When the Minister next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he draw his attention to an article in today's edition of The Independent, which outlines the plight of the British Bobsleigh Association and the British Ski Federation, both of which have had to abandon plans for their high-level competitors? Does the Minister accept that

receptions at No. 10 Downing street are no substitute for proper, substantial and systematic support for our Olympic competitors?

Mr. Moynihan: Of course. Receptions were never intended to be a substitute, nor has anybody ever suggested that they should be. The hon. and learned Gentleman will know that, in the build-up to an Olympic games, the Sports Council places additional resources available to several governing bodies in the Olympic games. If we separate the Olympic review money, as I wish The Independent had done, to give a fair representation, we will note that, over the past three years, money going from the Sports Council to the British Ski Federation has risen from £207,500 to £227,500, and to a higher figure of £236,000.

Mr. Lord: When my hon. Friend next meets the chairman of the Sports Council, will he suggest to him that the Seoul Olympic games should be the last in their present form? Is he aware that many lovers of sport believe that they were rather more of a professional sporting circus than a true Olympic event, which will be remembered more for the drugs that were taken than for sporting achievements? Will he urgently consider establishing a permanent site for the Olympic games, perhaps in Greece? More important, will he take urgent steps to try to re-establish true amateurism among participants in the games, to try to regain the true spirit of the Olympics?

Mr. Moynihan: I do not accept the premises that my hon. Friend has brought to the attention of the House. However, I will raise his specific comments with the chairman of the Sports Council, although it would be even better if my hon. Friend were to direct his comments towards the British Olympic Association.

Mr. Denis Howell: Will the Minister kindly tell us why last weekend he was selectively and anonymously engaged in leaking new Government proposals to tax football transfers in order to pay for the Government's new computer? Why did the Minister not have the decency to make a statement instead of leaking the proposals to two political journalists? Why was "football" not consulted about this new proposal? Why is it that this week 60 sports have learnt that their grants are to be cut, when there has been no consultation whatever with them or the Central Council of Physical Recreation, as is required by the royal charter for sport? Is it not clear that we no longer have a Ministry for sport, but instead have a dictatorship for sport, headed by the absurd figure of this Minister?

Mr. Moynihan: I never behave selectively and anonymously. The right hon. Gentleman's allegations are complete nonsense. I spent Saturday in my constituency and Sunday enjoying a relaxing day with my family.

Estate Action

Mr. Patnick: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what was the level of Estate Action funding for the years 1987–88 and 1988–89, respectively.

Mr. Trippier: The funding was £75 million in 1987–88 and £140 million in 1988–89.
My right hon. Friend announced yesterday a further substantial increase for next year of 36 per cent. That brings the total to £190 million.

Mr. Patnick: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and, on behalf of Sheffield, for the £7 million that it received. This year we shall receive £6·8 million and, as an Oliver Twist, may I ask whether there will be any more please for next year? If so, how much?

Mr. Trippier: I cannot answer the last question, because it is too early to say how the money will be allocated. My hon. Friend pointed out that Sheffield received 17 per cent. of the total regional allocation for Yorkshire and Humberside. From the increase announced by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for the Environment and the Chancellor of the Exchequer it is clear that there will be increased allocations on a regional basis. We shall consider carefully the application that Sheffield submits.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Will the Minister confirm that £190 million spread across the country is hardly a significant amount compared with the massive cuts in local authority housing investment programmes? Is not Estate Action funding a palliative? Small sums are given to local authorities to patch up poor estates which really need major surgery. They are palliatives that the Government have introduced to conceal the fact that they are not allowing local authorities to build new council houses.

Mr. Trippier: The gross provision for capital expenditure on housing in 1989–90 will be £441 million, which is a 12 per cent. increase on what was previously planned. Why is it that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends never take account of capital receipts and behave as if they did not exist? They choose to ignore capital receipts simply because they are not keen on the right-to-buy policy that draws in those receipts. The receipts are estimated to be about £3 billion, which is an impressive figure. Estate Action money is over and above that sum.

Angell and Loughborough Estates, London

Mr. Fraser: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many (a) letters have been sent and (b) visits have been made, by his officials, to tenants and residents of the Angell and Loughborough estates, London SW9.

Mr. Ridley: A total of 4,326 copies of two letters have been sent to occupiers of Angeltown and Loughborough estates. I met council and tenant representatives on 27 July, and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) has visited the estates. In addition, there have been three meetings attended by my officials.

Mr. Fraser: Does that not involve political expenditure in advance of a decision by Parliament, and is the Secretary of State not paying a substantial fee to Peat, Marwick, McLintock to find out whether there is support for housing action trusts among the tenants? In the interests of saving public expenditure, will the Secretary of State take it from me that the tenants are opposed to HATs? If he does not believe me, will he accept the decision of the other place to have a ballot of tenants?

Mr. Ridley: I remember the meeting which the hon. Gentleman attended with the tenants. I am sure that he will sympathise with me on how difficult it is to discuss and explain these matters to people if they walk out before the

meeting starts. I find it difficult to discover whether they are in favour or against HATs when they do not stay to talk to me.

Mr. Soley: Will the Secretary of State explain why he cannot tell the tenants what housing action trusts are about? He told us earlier that they were about getting extra money, but Peat, Marwick, McLintock clearly says in its document, which I have here in full, that "the goal" is
successful transfer to the private sector.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member should not quote.

Mr. Soley: As that is the intention of Peat, Marwick, McLintock, has it misled, or have the tenants been misled?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman, as he knows, has obtained another stolen document only this time it was stolen by the tenants. I express no dismay, because he does not quite know what it means. The private sector, of course, includes housing associations and tenants' co-operatives that are classified as being in the private sector.

Housing Associations (London)

Mr. Bowls: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met representatives of housing associations in London; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Ridley: I recently met the chairman of the Housing Corporation and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Mr. Trippier) will hold a meeting of representatives of the London Housing Associations Council next week.

Mr. Bowis: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many thousands of former council tenants have lost their right to buy by being transferred to housing association tenancies? Is he aware that in London the transfer discount scheme is not a realistic option because of house prices? Will he and his hon. Friend ensure that discussions take place with housing associations in London to ensure that possibly 20 to 30 per cent. of such properties are in share purchase schemes?

Mr. Ridley: As my hon. Friend knows, the Government had always hoped that they could persuade another place to agree that charitable housing associations should be subject to the right to buy. They have not so far succeeded in that objective, and that has been the root cause of the trouble that my hon. Friend quite rightly mentioned. It denies rights to buy to some people which are granted to others who happen to be tenants of non-charitable housing associations. I agree that the home ownership for tenants of charitable associations scheme—HOTCHA—is hardly likely to fill its place as it is at present. I could not agree more strongly that the answer is that there should be more shared ownership schemes brought forward by such charitable housing associations. We cannot compel them to do so, because housing associations are voluntary bodies, but we can encourage them. I have already asked the Housing Corporation to allocate sufficient funds for this purpose if the housing associations will take them up.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Secretary of State—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair to those who follow.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is increasing difficulty for housing associations in London in seeking to acquire any land or build any houses because of the extremely high cost of the land? Will the Secretary of State ensure in future that they are given the resources through the Housing Corporation to have a 100 per cent. grant, so that they can continue to meet the need that they were established to meet, which is low cost housing for rent for those in need?

Mr. Ridley: I read that SERPLAN believes that some 260,000 houses can be accommodated in London up to the end of this century. Therefore, I believe that there is still land available to build more houses in London. The vastly increased programme of funding for the Housing Corporation that my right hon. Friend and I announced yesterday in the public spending review should help to provide housing associations with the funds to build more.
There are still large numbers of empty houses and large numbers of council houses that are being abused. For instance, Brent council has now discovered that a large number of its council houses have the keys traded in Nigeria for £500 a go. If those houses were available, it would help the hon. Gentleman's constituents and other London homeless people. It is another example of the gross inefficiency of Labour authorities in the centre of London.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: rose—

Mr. Speaker: This question is about London.

Mr. Winterton: Indeed, Mr. Speaker. I am well aware of that.
Does my right hon. Friend accept that some specialist housing charities provide much-needed specialist accommodation in areas where housing costs are very high, so there could be a danger in introducing legislation to give people the right to buy because that could remove such accommodation from certain areas, thus depriving many deserving people of the opportunity of living there?

Mr. Ridley: My hon. Friend is quite right. That was the reason why the other place did not wish to grant the right to buy to tenants of charitable housing associations. However, it is a difficult decision, because at the same time large numbers of people, such as the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), are denied the right to buy where the objections that my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) rightly mentions do not apply. Therefore, I hope that charitable housing associations will adapt their policy on the ground according to whether they are in the category of my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Secretary of State aware that an undertaking given by the Government at the time of the abolition of the GLC in respect of seaside and country homes has been reneged on by the Government? Old people were told that when their homes went over to housing associations the rent levels would remain broadly what they were at that time. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that since the London Residuary Body has sold on those homes to housing associations those old people are now having to pay staggeringly high rents? Is the Minister not ashamed of what he has done?

Mr. Ridley: I have some of those houses in my constituency. Those rents are not fixed unless the rent officer agrees any change. But it must be right that rents should rise to the general level of rents in the area concerned. I am still waiting to hear from the hon. Gentleman whether he will withdraw the word "scandal" that he used on Monday [HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Bradford City Council

Mr. Allen McKay: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what account he took, in fixing the rate support grant for Bradford city council for 1988–89, of information provided by the council on projected staffing levels; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gummer: An authority's entitlement to block grant depends on the rate support grant settlement and on its total expenditure. My right hon. Friend took no account of individual local authority projected staffing levels in determining the RSG settlement for 1988–89.

Mr. McKay: It is regrettable that the Government took no notice of staffing levels. If they had, they would have noted that those levels were aimed at looking after the most needy in Bradford, the elderly, the young and the unemployed. Is it not a fact that Bradford Tory council, in making 9,000 people redundant over the next five years, in addition to the 25,000 already unemployed, will undermine the local economy and efforts to solve the inner urban problems of the area?

Mr. Gummer: It would be much better if the hon. Gentleman accepted the verdict of the electorate and allowed the council that they elected to make local decisions for itself, instead of constantly misinterpreting what the council is doing in a way that is wholly wrong and unacceptable.

Mr. Batiste: Does my right hon. Friend agree that ratepayers elsewhere can only benefit if their councils follow the excellent lead of the Conservatives in Bradford in cutting out waste and political appointments when making staffing decisions?

Mr. Gummer: Of course, it is up to Bradford council to make its own decisions, but the House will probably feel that, for example, the money that will now not be spent on a ludicrous nuclear-free zone will be better spent in other ways.

Mr. O'Brien: The Minister cannot deny that through the casting vote of the Conservative lord mayor of Bradford 9,000 men and women will lose their jobs, and the ripple effect wil mean further job losses in a city where 23,000 people are already looking for work. When will the Minister take action against the Right-wing Tory group which has taken over Bradford and is causing devastation in the area? Is it not time that he took action against that group rather than condemning Labour party members in other parts of the country?

Mr. Gummer: I can deny it, because the hon. Gentleman is wholly untruthful in what he has said[Interruption.] I withdraw that comment. The hon. Gentleman is wholly mistaken in what he has said. He is confusng that with the fact that a number of jobs will go to private enterprise, others will be redeployed and in the end others will not be filled. The result will actually be


more jobs in Bradford because there will no longer be such a weight on the ratepayers, and that money can be used elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman must not ask this Government to interfere in the democratic process. We believe in local government and we do not believe in directing it from the centre.

Mr. Waller: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Bradford council on recognising that the local authority exists to provide services, not to increase its empire? Is he aware that those who pay the rate bills in Bradford in many cases are the same people who have had to reduce the number of their own employees so as to pay for the local government manpower that has greatly increased in Bradford in the past few years?

Mr. Glimmer: My hon. Friend is right. The people of Bradford have clearly decided that they would like their city to be run by politicians, not by the local unions. That is why the argument has taken place. It will be for the Bradford group to make its own decisions about how to run its own show. It seems to me likely, however, that if one cuts the costs of local government and spends the

savings on those who are most needy, while ensuring value for money, one can also ensure that there are more jobs in the private sector so that unemployment in Bradford will fall and more and more people will vote Conservative as a result.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will take points of order after the presentation of the Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions — BILL PRESENTED

NATIONAL CERVICAL CANCER FOUNDATION (ESTABLISHMENT)

Mr. Frank Cook presented a Bill to establish a National Cervical Cancer Foundation responsible for a comprehensive programme of cervical screening and the recruitment and training of medical laboratory officers for such a programme: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 222.]

Points of Order

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order arising out of questions, Mr. Speaker. There is an obligation on Ministers—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not arising out of questions. It is a point of order.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order following questions, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is an obligation on Ministers to provide information to Parliament. That is a convention of the constitution. It is misleading the House to suggest that the Conservatives in Bradford presented information to the electors—

Mr. Speaker: Order. As I feared, that is a continuation of Question Time. I am sorry that I was unable to call the hon. Gentleman, but one of his colleagues from Bradford made a rather long intervention and I cannot get every Member in.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Eric S. Heller: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have noticed for some time now that you tend to take points of order after other business. May I ask why?

Mr. Speaker: That has been a long-established practice.

Mr. Heifer: No, it has not.

Mr. Speaker: It certainly has.

Mr. Heifer: It has not.

Mr. Speaker: The moment when points of order are taken is immediately after statements or applications under Standing Order No. 20.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to have a continuation of Question Time. If it is a different point of order, I will hear it.

Mr. Cryer: It is a different point of order, Mr. Speaker. The implication of your statement is that if one of a number of Members being considered for calling at Question Time takes what you regard as a long time over a question, other Members from the area will be penalised. That is something that no Speaker has ever announced in the House before. Surely we are all elected to the House and all have the right to be called at your discretion, irrespective of the comments made by any other Member.

Mr. Speaker: That is absolutely correct, but I think the hon. Gentleman will accept that if an area has four Members and every one of those Members is called on every question relating to it, that would be unfair to Members representing other areas.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: rose—

Mr. Tony Banks: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that I had better call Mr. Faulds.

Mr. Tony Banks: He has only just got here.

Mr. Faulds: I have been here for 22 years.

Hon. Members: Resign.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that that is too long.

Mr. Faulds: I appreciate your appreciation, Sir. May I make a point that is relevant to this important point of order, without these discrepancies of youngsters trying to intervene and interfere? With due respect to you, Sir, I have been in the House longer than you.

Mr. David Winnick: Mr. Speaker has been here for two years longer than my hon. Friend.

Mr. Faulds: In that case, I apologise, Sir. You have done two years' more service than I have, but perhaps my memory is somewhat better than yours. In the old days, points of order were invariably accepted by the Chair the moment they arose. There has been a change in practice, which unfortunately started in the time of your lamentable predecessor.

Mr. Speaker: There has been no change of practice.

Mr. Tony Banks: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With regard to your earlier point on Bradford, you will recall that in the days of the blessed Bruinvels you regularly took questions from all three Members from Leicester—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must allow the Speaker to make the decision on this matter. I am not prepared to debate who I call at Question Time or at any other time.

Mr. Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No.

Mr. Cryer: May I make a further point of order, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet. The hon. Member may not raise a point of order.

Unleaded Petrol (Engine Adjustment)

Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the compulsory tuning of motor car engines at the time of manufacture for running on unleaded petrol.
Although I am certain that it will not have escaped the notice of many hon. Members, I point out that this is National Unleaded Petrol Week. This week and my Bill are intended to encourage the take-up of unleaded petrol by the motoring public.
The emphasis on publicising unleaded petrol has been by oil companies. There are 2,300 filling stations out of a total of 20,000 or more with pumps that serve unleaded petrol. Unfortunately, the take-up rate by the travelling public is not great. The take-up rate from unleaded pumps is only 20 per cent. of that from four-star pumps. The rate could be speeded up in terms of the number of pumps available, but my Bill does something slightly different. It seeks to concentrate attention on motor manufacturers and car owners, rather than on oil companies, in order to increase the use of unleaded petrol.
The first part of my Bill aims to make it compulsory for motor manufacturers to tune new car engines to run on unleaded petrol where that can be done with a minimum of inconvenience. Fifty per cent. of new car registrations in this new car registration year beginning in August were of motor cars that could run on unleaded petrol but were tuned to run only on the leaded variety.
The second part of my Bill addresses the problem of cars already on the road. There are now 13 million motor cars on our roads that could run on unleaded petrol, but only 2 million are tuned to do so.
For new cars, my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for roads has made it clear to car manufacturers that he is prepared to issue a waiver so that, if they wish to tune their cars to run on unleaded petrol,

they may do so without falling foul of the type approval regulations. For used cars, my Bill would seek to make it a condition of the issue or reissue of an MOT certificate that cars that can be converted to run on unleaded petrol are converted before the certificate is issued.
The cost of retuning is small, varying between £5 and £20, depending on model type. As unleaded petrol is 6p cheaper than four-star petrol since the change announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget, it is clear that if a customer completes the average mileage of about 10,000 miles, the cost of that conversion could be recouped within a year.
One motor manufacturer has gone further than that. The Vauxhall company has agreed that cars that were made after 1985 will be retuned free of charge to run on unleaded petrol, and the new Cavalier will be so retuned by the dealer before the customer takes delivery. It is worth pointing out that if cars are converted to run on unleaded petrol, that does not mean that they cannot use the leaded variety when the unleaded variety is not available.
The slow take-up of unleaded petrol is largely the result of the ignorance of car owners and the motor trade generally about it. I hope that my Bill, combined with National Unleaded Petrol Week, will improve the level of knowledge and encourage car owners to make the change to unleaded petrol. I hope that my hon. Friends and other hon. Members will take a lead and, if they are able to do so, have their cars converted to run on unleaded petrol as soon as possible.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Keith Mans, Mr. James Paice, Mr. Irvine Patnick and Mr. Julian Brazier.

UNLEADED PETROL (ENGINE ADJUSTMENT)

Mr. Keith Mans accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the compulsory tuning of motor car engines at the time of manufacture for running on unleaded petrol: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 223.]

Firearms (Amendment) Bill [Money] (No. 3)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in respect of expenses incurred in the performance of their duties by members of the consultative committee established by that Act.
I want so speak about the money resolution, not least because I see that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is in his place. In the past he has made some comments about money resolutions, and no doubt has had a considerable degree of pleasure from them.
The House will recall that this is the third money resolution relating to the Firearms (Amendment) Bill. The first money resolution, which was debated in January this year, provided for the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any administrative expenses incurred by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as a consequence of the Bill, and also for the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums of money received under the Bill by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
The House will recall that a number of hon. Members—notably the hon. Member for Bradford, South made the point that the scope of the money resolution being accepted by the House was not wide enough to cover the buy-in policy if it were to be adopted. As the House knows, it was adopted and, as a result, a second money resolution was brought forward and debated in the House at the beginning of March. The second money resolution provided for the making of payments in relation to the buy-in scheme for weapons prohibited under the Bill.
During the progress of the Bill, and particularly on Report, the Government accepted the need to make provision in the Bill for the establishment of a firearms consultative committee, which would be made up of representatives of those involved in the administration and enforcement of firearms legislation and of various shooting interests. The purpose of the committee will be to keep the legislation under review and to advise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on firearms matters.
Clearly, it is right that the Government should meet the costs incurred by members of the committee in the performance of their duties. The posts are not salaried. I am talking of travelling, subsistence costs and so on. The Government therefore introduced an amendment in the other place to provide for the payment of expenses. As the existing money resolutions do not cover such provision, it is now necessary to pass this third money resolution to cover the cost, which we estimate will not exceed £10,000 a year.
It was not possible to lay a money resolution to meet such expenditure before, because until the Bill reached its Report stage the Government had not intended to provide for a statutory—as opposed to a non-statutory—consultative committee. The House will recall, however, that members of the Committee took a different view and that the Government were beaten on that issue.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I suppose that this could be regarded as a case of "third time lucky" for the Minister. He makes the background to the money resolution sound as though it had involved a comfortable natural process of evolution—far from it. As he said, this is the third money resolution that the Government have tabled. It was only after the Second Reading debate that we discovered that the money resolution did not allow the Committee to debate a possible compensation scheme for the owners of weapons that the Bill will make illegal.
The Minister will recall our exchanges across the Floor of the House and in Committee. The Government tried to gag and stifle debate on this important matter. I remind the Minister that, despite the cosy way in which he described the process, he managed to get his sittings motion passed in Committee only by giving an undertaking to undo that attempt at cheating and to table a second money resolution to enable the Committee to discuss the principle of a possible compensation scheme.
We now come to the third money resolution. To be fair to the Minister, he reminded the House that it was at the insistence of members of the Committee, including my hon. Friends and myself, that we amended the terms of reference of the consultative committee to ensure that it was set up on a statutory basis. Nevertheless, the provision was not perfect, because it meant that the members of the Committee—some of us suspected that it was simply the old home affairs arms consultative committee dusted down and given a new title—could speak only when spoken to by the Home Secretary. That was a wholly wrong approach to such an important matter, and I am glad that it was put right in another place.
Why has this third money resolution come before us so late? If the Minister and the Government had allowed proper and adequate debate on Report and Third Reading we could have disposed of the matter at that stage, but Ministers came to the House with a gagging motion—a guillotine— which meant that that part of the Bill was not discussed. Indeed, the bulk of the Bill was never discussed on the Floor of the House. That was no accident. It was done in a remarkable way. It was not a Government response to the Opposition messing about and filibustering —far from it. I have no need to remind the Minister that he relied heavily in Committee on the general support of the Opposition for the Bill's aims, although, like some Conservative Members, we disagreed with its detail.
Why was this not allowed to be dealt with on Report or Third Reading? I am not complaining about reimbursing the proper expenses of members of the consultative committee; I am complaining because of the underhand and outrageous manner in which the Government have dealt with the Bill. It has been an affront to the House. That is not a party political point—I make it on behalf of all hon. Members. Now, the Government are in an even worse mess. It is right that the committee members should be paid, but I strongly resent having to return now and spend time on this resolution because of the trouble into which the Parliamentary Under-Secretary and his colleagues dug themselves earlier this year.

Sir Hector Monro: I agree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) that the Minister's benign statement covered a great deal of


unhappiness with sweetness and light. The Bill is small, but its repercussions will be serious, and it is incredible that we are now discussing a third money resolution.
The first, as the hon. Member for Erdington said, dealt with manpower, which was grossly underestimated. The second covered compensation, without whose acceptance the Standing Committee would never have begun to sit. The third has to do with the consultative committee. These grudging extensions to the original money resolution were squeezed out of the Government until the pips began to squeak.
New clause 14, which originally instituted the consultative committee, was an important part of the wishes of both sides of the Committee. It was voted in because we won the argument and we won the vote. We planned to have a committee of five and not more than eight members. The Minister's committee is more expensive, which is why we want to know a little more about the money resolution.
We wanted experts in the use of firearms, in security, in weapon technology—the Home Office was lamentably short of experience in that—in sport, recreation and competition and in the police and enforcement. At the Olympic games, two of our great triumphs came in winning the gold and silver medals in rifle shooting, which showed that our discussions were held against a background of responsible competitors.
The purpose of the committee that we set up was to advise the Government on security, the proper use of firearms and any other matters that the Secretary of State decided upon. It was voted in with cross-party support, and we were given every sign and assurance that it would be kept in the Bill as it was. But things did not turn out that way.
At the eleventh hour, on the day before Report, the Government tabled amendments that made substantial changes to the committee, perhaps improving it in the Minister's opinion, but the majority of the Committee's Members did not agree with the changes. We could not discuss them in the debate on the guillotine motion on Report. I am glad that Lord Swansea and his team continued the attack in another place in an attempt to get the consultative committee right, and the Government had to agree to include representatives expert in sport and recreation in the committee's membership. The Government have increased that membership to at least 12. Under the terms of the money resolution, we are entitled to know who the extra members of the committee will represent.
The Minister spoke about £10,000. We need proper advice on weapons technology, especially for the future, and we cannot have that without some laboratory and range facilities. If the committee is to do its job properly, £10,000 is fairly minimal, because the committee might need to have a full-time technical officer. A sum of £10,000 far underestimates the value and importance of the work that the committee will do for the Home Office. I hope that the Minister will go into some detail about how he reckons £10,000 can possibly do the job, when the Home Office, as was demonstrated throughout the passage of the Bill, is so short of expertise.
The Bill says that personnel would amount to about 80, which is an insignificant manpower requirement. However, we hear from police authorities that Cambridge has already taken on 13 people and that Dorset has taken on six. On such figures, it will he seen that the personnel

required for England and Wales would be 450, additional staff who would be required to monitor the Bill. That would cost £5 million or £6 million, and I should like to hear from the Minister about that.
The Minister seeks authority under the three money resolutions for significant expenditure. Throughout the passage of the Bill he has failed to say what the legislation will cost or how much the fee will be for firearms and shotgun certificates. He has left us in the dark—which is probably his intention.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I can recall the debate on the first of the money resolutions. That debate developed when the money resolution was about to go through, largely on the nod. I thought that we should have an explanation, and it became clear that the first money resolution after Second Reading did not meet the scope of the assurances that the Minister had given. I thought that I was doing the job of scrutinising the work of Ministers, even though I know that some of us who speak a great deal in the Chamber sometimes incur some criticism. We should not be criticised and penalised by, for example, a totting up of the speeches that we make, because they are by way of scrutiny.
This debate is an example of the way in which the scrutiny of Ministers has worked. In order to comply with the pressure from the House, the Minister had to bring forward a second money resolution, which, as he said on Second Reading, was to pay compensation for old firearms. It was rather surprising to find that the money resolution was so narrowly drawn that it did not make provision for any other consequences of the legislation, especially as this is controversial legislation. That controversy is fuelled by hon. Members in all parts of the House, and especially by Conservative Members. It might have been prudent for the Government to realise that there might be changes. The establishment of a statutory review committee is a useful development. Therefore, it should be financed, and we are discussing a money resolution for that statutory committee.
I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The Government are cheering the Tory-controlled Bradford council for sacking people who provided services for the old, the young, very young children, education and sports services and a huge range of other local authority services. Bradford council is proposing to sack 9,000 people, yet the Government are apparently providing a system that will, not entirely by way of Government finance, but through other finance provided by various authorities, involve the employment of 450 people. That is, I would have thought, extending bureaucracy somewhat unnecessarily, but then some critics of the Bill thought that that was explicit in the original legislation anyhow.
The extent and scope of the money resolution should be more closely defined by the Minister. After all, they are supposed to be the Government who are critical of expenditure and who want to see bureaucracy cut. That is why they praise the lunatic endeavours of the tiny extreme Right-wing Tory clique that is manoeuvring cuts by Bradford city council.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is not the difference between Bradford city council and the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make that, under its previous


administration, Bradford city council was grossly overstaffed, whereas police forces are grossly understaffed? Therefore, his comparison is invalid.

Mr. Cryer: I do not want to go too far down that road, because I always try to follow Standing Orders, and sometimes get penalised for so doing. The hon. Gentleman's point is not based on experience or accuracy. Bradford city council tried to use an absolute minimum number of staff to provide the best possible service, bearing in mind that the rate support grant had been savagely cut by the Conservative Government, who are now preparing—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us bear in mind the Standing Orders.

Mr. Cryer: I was just coming to the motion before you interrupted me, Mr. Speaker, as you interrupted my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Madden) during Question Time, and extended the speech, you may recall,—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman, who is an old hand here, knows that we must stick to the motion before the House.

Mr. Cryer: That is so, Mr. Speaker. I was about to say that, with this money resolution, the Government are proposing further expenditure when it is open to question whether that expenditure is justified. Therefore, I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of the precise extent and nature of the money resolution, and whether he is satisfied that it covers all the changes made to the Bill by the two Houses of Parliament.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to clarify one or two points. By way of prefacing that, I would say that it is ironic that this Government, of all Governments, who are doing their best to improve efficiency, get better value for money and, above all else, to use police resources more effectively, are embarking on legislation that will greatly increase the pressure on those scarce police resources. It is ironic because there was not adequate consultation on the Bill, which was rushed through far too quickly.
The Bill will break the trust and confidence between the shooting community and the police, which is one of the sine qua nons of workable firearms legislation. I fear that that will be breached and then destroyed. I have had worrying reports from my local police force, the Norfolk constabulary. It is worried about the extra pressure that the Bill will place on its scarce resources to cope with bureaucracy and provide the extra manpower.
My hon. Friend the Minister has to tell us exactly what he thinks the financial consequences will be, because the Bill is couched in extremely general terms. It says:
some increases … will initially be required".
Can my hon. Friend tell us why the increases will be required only "initially"? We are bringing in a panoply of new controls and structures, which will need a continuing commitment of police resources. To use the word "initially" is unrealistic.
Will my hon. Friend let us have more details about the amount of money that we are talking about in

compensation? I welcome the moves made by the Government on compensation. When the Bill was first published, many of us were appalled and outraged that the Government were taking away people's weapons without giving compensation. It probably ill-behoves people like myself, who pressed so hard for compensation, to say now that it is not adequate. It could be improved on, but, in the circumstances, we got the best that we could have expected. However, I should like my hon. Friend to tell us exactly what sums of money we are talking about. He should know by now the number of weapons involved and the sums of money available to be paid out. I should like some more details on that.
I should also like my hon. Friend to give us some idea of what the consultative committee will cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) pointed out that when we first put this animal into the Bill in Committee it was an excellent body, and the Government then attempted, in an underhand and squalid way, to dismember it. I am pleased that some of its teeth have been returned to it by the other place, although one thing concerns me, and it may be appropriate for my hon. Friend to cover this. I am concerned that it has been established to last for only five years. It would be helpful if my hon. Friend could tell us what he feels the Committee has to do, or what criteria of competence and effectiveness it has to work to, to secure its position beyond five years. Will my hon. Friend tell us something about that, and about what the cost of the committee will be?

Mr. Ian McCartney: My hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Mr. Cunliffe) and I recently met Lord Ferrers to discuss the resources for the Greater Manchester police force, and in our discussions the issue of the administrative resources and the disagreement about the level of funding of those resources was paramount. Therefore, I look to the Minister for some clarification of what he said about resources, start-up money, and the way in which the Greater Manchester police force will be involved in the consequences of this legislation. To what extent are the Minister and Lord Ferrers to provide additional resources, in real terms, to Greater Manchester police force to cover this provision?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have some difficulty in relating that to the firearms legislation.

Mr. McCartney: I respect your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), I am somewhat new to these procedural matters. I am trying to relate what I am saying to what the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) said about the police force in his constituency. I ask the Minister to clarify what the effects of the legislation will be on the administrative responsibilities of the Greater Manchester police force and the resources available to it.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: I was a member of the Committee that considered this legislation, and I know that at no time in the Committee's proceedings was it the Government's intention to pay compensation. They came along with an ill-prepared Bill that had not been properly


thought out and conceived without any rational judgment about the various interests involved.
I am opposed to anybody, with the exception of the armed forces and the police, having guns. My hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) raised the point about Greater Manchester police force resources. I share the view of the chief constable of Manchester. He is much criticised and much attacked for his views, but he is a first-class policeman. Politically he is a disaster, and in public relations and the other sectors into which he strays from time to time he is wrong in his opinions.
At the end of the day, regardless of personal beliefs, there was a degree of tolerance and democracy in the Committee for other interests. It was rather ironic that a minority Labour representation on the Committee consistently bailed out a Conservative Minister and provided him with a majority. The Bill would never have got off the ground if it had been left to Conservative Back-Benchers, who for obvious reasons were promoting a campaign to safeguard various shooting societies throughout the country.
I accept that that is fair play and that they did it extremely well, but I take umbrage at certain applications for gun clubs that are sprouting up throughout the country. There was a recent application for a shooting club in my constituency, in Greater Manchester, to be set up in a wildlife area in a green belt. That would be an environmental intrusion. All the money in the world could not compensate for such an environmental intrusion into that area.
The Government were hell-bent on pushing through the legislation although it was ill-prepared and badly thought out. We could have taken a more rational and sensible approach, which would have saved the embarrassment of my party having to bail out Government Ministers in order to make progress on the Bill.

Mr. Frank Haynes: I shall be very brief. I have been here throughout the debate, and I must say that there are some honourable fools in the Chamber. From time to time we have to listen to them.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us agree that they are hon. Members.

Mr. Haynes: They are hon. Members, but they are fools.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that that might be considered unparliamentary.

Mr. Haynes: In that case, I withdraw it, but I hope that they will be reasonable while we are here.
First, in regard to the money resolution, the Minister cocked it up right from the beginning. I was here when my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) and the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) had a go at the Minister at the Dispatch Box.
I share some of the concern among hon. Members that the Government are finding money for this purpose. Normally when we ask for money for services in our constituencies we are refused, as we were for rate support grant, yet the Government are able to find money today.
I think that this is the thin end of the wedge. I hope that

the Minister will put us straight and tell us where he thinks the legislation is going. What will happen in future? Will there be more and more bodies providing this kind of service? If so, even more money will have to be found. Will larger and larger accommodation have to be provided for those people? I can visualise what is happening in the Minister's mind over the provision of money for this type of work.
I share the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South, who spoke about the way in which the Government treat local authorities, particularly those in his area—I am glad that he is listening now—when he mentioned that Bradford city council is now Tory controlled. I shall not say any more about that, but I know what happens when Conservatives take control of local authorities. We experience it here in the mother of Parliaments. There is a by-election tomorrow in the city of Nottingham. The Tories are in control at the moment, but if we win that seat we will be in control. I am sure that people will be listening to what is being said today about money being provided for this kind of thing, but not for necessary and important services that people need.
I hope that the Minister and the Government do not have it in mind, when they get this measure off the ground, to find more and more money at the expense of services that people need. After all, we represent those people and we are speaking on their behalf.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: We have had a surprisingly wide-ranging debate, given how narrowly the money resolution is drawn. The money resolution is drawn exclusively to meet the payment of out-of-pocket expenses of members of the consultative committee. It goes no further than that. Therefore, the broader issues that have been raised do not arise directly out of the money resolution; and I propose to keep my remarks fairly narrowly focused.
The money resolution is designed to give financial effect to the power of the Secretary of State to meet the out-of-pocket expenses of the consultative committee, if that is the will of the House. I shall be commending to the House a Lords amendment to that effect. Quite plainly we cannot put a precise figure on that, but it is bound to be extremely modest, because we are talking about the out-of-pocket expenses of a relatively small number of people.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) criticised the Government, and particularly me, for increasing the number of members of the consultative committee. I wonder whether he is wholly fair in that respect. The definition of those eligible to serve on the consultative committee includes quite a number of people —those with expertise in possession, use, keeping, transactions, technology, enforcement and administration. My hon. Friend wished to add to that sport and recreation, and I agree with him. If one representative for each of those interests served on the committee, it would consist of nine people. If we wanted to have one or two more, say two from one interest group, we would get to 12 very quickly. Simply to meet my hon. Friend's natural desires, it was necessary to extend the number.
My answer to the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is that I get cross sometimes, but I never


criticise hon. Members who talk about money resolutions. When I was sitting below the Gangway I used to do so frequently. I thought that it was good sport, and occasionally it was useful.
I admit that the hon. Member for Bradford, South made a good point when he spoke about the first money resolution. He was right in saying that the money resolution then before the House was not drawn sufficiently widely to cover a buy-in scheme. The reason for that was quite plain and was nothing covert. We did not intend to have a buy-in scheme. There was no pretence about that, there was no intent to cheat, deceive or fetter the ability of the committee. We did not intend to have a buy-in scheme, and that is why the money resolution as originally formulated did not provide for one.
The hon. Member for Bradford, South was a little unfair when he criticised me, and certainly the Government, for not ensuring that the second money resolution covered the requirement now before the House. As he will recall, when we were debating the second money resolution we did not have in mind a statutory consultative committee, and therefore we assumed that the issue would not arise.
As the hon. Member for Bradford, South is joining the Conservative party in his anxiety to safeguard and husband public money, I am sure that he will not ask for money resolutions that are at large, which is what he would have to argue for if he were to sustain his proposition that the money resolution now before the House should in some way have been encompassed within the second money resolution. On reflection, I think the hon. Gentleman will feel that he scored one good point, but also made one rather less good point. I commend the money resolution to the House.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 232, Noes 161.

Division No. 465]
[4.19 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Alexander, Richard
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Buck, Sir Antony


Amos, Alan
Burns, Simon


Arbuthnot, James
Burt, Alistair


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Butler, Chris


Ashby, David
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Aspinwall, Jack
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Atkinson, David
Carrington, Matthew


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Carttiss, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Chapman, Sydney


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Chope, Christopher


Batiste, Spencer
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Bellingham, Henry
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Bendall, Vivian
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Colvin, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Conway, Derek


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Cope, Rt Hon John


Boswell, Tim
Couchman, James


Bottomley, Peter
Cran, James


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Critchley, Julian


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bowis, John
Curry, David


Brazier, Julian
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bright, Graham
Day, Stephen


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Devlin, Tim


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Dickens, Geoffrey





Dorrell, Stephen
Mans, Keith


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Durant, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dykes, Hugh
Maude, Hon Francis


Eggar, Tim
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mellor, David


Evennett, David
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fallon, Michael
Miller, Sir Hal


Farr, Sir John
Mills, Iain


Favell, Tony
Miscampbell, Norman


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Monro, Sir Hector


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moore, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Miss Janet
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forth, Eric
Morrison, Sir Charles


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mudd, David


Franks, Cecil
Neale, Gerrard


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Fry, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Paice, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Patnick, Irvine


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Price, Sir David


Hampson, Dr Keith
Raffan, Keith


Hannam, John
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Harris, David
Redwood, John


Haselhurst, Alan
Rhodes James, Robert


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Riddick, Graham


Hayward, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hill, James
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Hind, Kenneth
Rost, Peter


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Ryder, Richard


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Howells, Geraint
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Hunter, Andrew
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Irvine, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Jack, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Jessel, Toby
Speed, Keith


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Squire, Robin


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stanbrook, Ivor


Kirkwood, Archy
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Knapman, Roger
Steen, Anthony


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stern, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Stevens, Lewis


Knox, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Lang, Ian
Sumberg, David


Latham, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lightbown, David
Thornton, Malcolm


Lilley, Peter
Thurnham, Peter


Livsey, Richard
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Lord, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


McCrindle, Robert
Waddington, Rt Hon David


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Maclean, David
Walden, George


McLoughlin, Patrick
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Waller, Gary


Madel, David
Ward, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)






Watts, John
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, John
Yeo, Tim


Whitney, Ray
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Widdecombe, Ann
Younger, Rt Hon George


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Winterton, Nicholas
Mr. Tom Sackville.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fraser, John


Blair, Tony
Fyfe, Maria


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Graham, Thomas


Buchan, Norman
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Haynes, Frank


Clelland, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cousins, Jim
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
John, Brynmor


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dixon, Don
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Dobson, Frank
Lamond, James


Doran, Frank
Leadbitter, Ted


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leighton, Ron





Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lewis, Terry
Radice, Giles


Litherland, Robert
Randall, Stuart


Livingstone, Ken
Redmond, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAllion, John
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


Madden, Max
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Maginnis, Ken
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Meacher, Michael
Stott, Roger


Meale, Alan
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaz, Keith


Morgan, Rhodri
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wall, Pat


Mowlam, Marjorie
Walley, Joan


Mullin, Chris
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Murphy, Paul
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Paisley, Rev Ian
Worthington, Tony


Parry, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Prescott, John
Mr. Alun Michael.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments in respect of expenses incurred in the performance of their duties by members of the consultative committee established by that Act.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move,
That the Order of the House [25th May] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

The effect of the timetable motion is to bring to an end the House's consideration of Lords amendments three hours after the start of the present debate. It is right to mention that this debate cannot last more than one hour. The timetable motion thus provides for the termination of debate and for voting on various questions.

Without seeking to curtail the debate, it might be helpful to remind hon. Members that the sooner we finish the debate on the timetable motion, the sooner we shall get on to the substantial consideration of Lords amendments.

I know quite well that the House views timetable motions with some hostility. Indeed, I have sometimes expressed such hostility. On occasion, timetable motions are justified, and I hope that the House will agree that this is such an occasion.

The Government's policy for reforming firearms legislation and for the Bill has been the subject of extensive debate and scrutiny. The House will recall that, in December 1987, we discussed the White Paper on the firearms proposals. The House gave a Second Reading to the Bill and it went into an extended and interesting Committee. The Bill spent a total of 28 hours in Committee. That was a substantial period, when one remembers that the Bill then contained only 19 clauses. I


make no complaint about it being debated so fully, because, as a result of remarks made by hon. Members, substantial and useful changes were made.

The Report stage of the Bill was a wonderfully interesting occasion. It lasted 16 hours, which is a trifle unusual for a Bill of this length, and there were 67 Divisions. My recollection is that most of them were fairly unusual. For about five hours, hon. Members rose every two and a half minutes to express their views.

The Bill has had many curious aspects, and we have seen one recently. The House will recall that the Opposition urged us to set up a statutory consultative committee: we were reminded of that this afternoon by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett). He said that it was good that we had set up a statutory consultative committee, so we moved the money resolution to pay the out-of-pocket expenses of the committee, which was set up to meet the wishes of the House. What happened? The Labour party caused a Division and voted against the proposition that we should pay the expenses of the members of the committee, which the Labour party urged us to set up. The hon. Member for Erdington, who is an Opposition spokesman, and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) entered the Opposition Lobby to vote against the payment of out-of-pocket expenses to those whose establishment they urged on us. As I said, this has been a remarkable Bill.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Does my hon. Friend agree that, when the debate about the consultative committee began in Committee, there was broad agreement between those who tabled the amendment and the Opposition? The animal that we created was different from that on which we voted today in connection with the expenses of its members.

Mr. Hogg: No, I do not. The consultative committee that is encapsulated in the Bill is a more powerful and effective institution than that for which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and some of his supporters voted in Committee.

Mr. Robin Corbett: The Minister resisted it.

Mr. Hogg: I resisted it because at that stage I thought it was an unsustainable proposition. In deference to the House, we accepted it and improved it by giving it more force and efficacy. Those who suggest to the contrary do not understand the legislation.
From time to time, the House is entitled to protect itself against an undue prolongation of procedure. I am not one to criticise hon. Members who use parliamentary rules. I have done so myself on many occasions, and should I be deprived of my comfortable seat on the Front Bench I shall do so again. I recognise that there is a converse to that proposition, which is that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or the House collectively, are entitled to take proper action to prevent an undue prolongation of procedure. What happened on the money resolution was a good example of the practices that the House, on the whole, deems undesirable.

Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to pose a question. Is he seriously suggesting that parliamentary procedures have been abused during the passage of this legislation? If he is, I

demand that he puts evidence for that before the House. Conservative Members know clearly that that is not so and never has been.

Mr. Hogg: The House will have heard my reference to 67 Divisions and my view that that was somewhat unusual. I did not say that it was an abuse; I said that I never criticised hon. Members for using parliamentary procedure, if only because I had done it myself. However, on occasions it is right and proper to give the House an opportunity to protect itself against the undue prolongation of proceedings so that it can focus on the issues that really matter. The Opposition's behaviour on the money resolution shows the good sense of the timetable motion.

Mr. Robin Corbett: When the Minister and others read Hansard tomorrow, they will see one of the most remarkable attempts to justify an outrage that has ever been made from the Dispatch Box. I do not object to the odd history lesson, but I and, I think, many others object to the entirely one-sided and selective nature of the Minister's recollection of earlier events on the Bill. It should be understood—if the Minister needs reminding, I am happy to remind him—that those 67 Divisions following Report and Third Reading arose solely because of the outrageous way in which the Minister and his colleagues slapped a guillotine on those proceedings, despite the most amicable series of Committee sittings—

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: The Government would not have had a sittings motion without us.

Mr. Corbett: As my hon. Friend says, and not to put too fine a point on it, if it had not been for the good will and co-operation of the Opposition, the Minister would not have had his sittings motion, let alone his Bill. It is a fine way to say thank you.
It is traditional, and perhaps part of the ritual of this place, for Oppositions to protest against a guillotine motion. I wish to make it immediately clear that I do not do so on that basis today. I oppose the motion because it is needless and vindictive. It is the second time this Session that this arrogant Government have imposed a guillotine on debate of the Bill—not because of obstruction by the Opposition, but because a number of the Government's supporters tried to insist, with our support, on proper debate and to persuade the Government to see better sense on some of the provisions of this unhappy Bill.
As has been made clear throughout the proceedings, well before Hungerford and well before the Bill was presented, the Opposition demanded a tightening of the gun laws to protect public safety. Initially, the Home Secretary said that there was no need for that. He said so to a number of my hon. Friends who represent London constituencies and who were rightly alarmed about: the shocking rise in violent crime on the streets of our capital —something that is being echoed in Birmingham and other parts of the country.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the Bill was prepared in 1973 and then shelved. It sat on a shelf during the entire time that the Labour party governed the country. Why did it not bring it in then?

Mr. Corbett: I do not accept that. My point, which is incontrovertible—as the Minister and his colleagues; can


confirm—is that when a deputation of my hon. Friends from London constituencies went to see the Home Secretary in June 1986 to argue the case for some tightening of the gun control laws on the ground of public safety, they were sent away with a flea in their ear.
We gave a general welcome to the Bill and both promised and delivered co-operation—while, of course, exercising our right to seek changes in what was proposed. The Minister will remember that, at the Committee's first sitting, he could not obtain a sittings motion without our assistance because of a shabby attempt to deny the Committee the right to discuss the issue and the detail of compensation for weapons made illegal under the Bill. The fact is and remains so as we reach the final stages of the Bill—that the details and scope of compensation have never been discussed on the Floor of the House, despite the fact that on Second Reading all but one of the Government's Back Benchers, including a distinguished former Prime Minister, insisted—in the face of Government opposition—that there should be some compensation.
No proper details were made available during the Committee stage. We were promised—and, to be fair to the Minister, received—details of what was proposed before Report and Third Reading. That is where the cheat and the affront came in. Between the end of the Bill's Committee stage and its Report stage, the Minister hid from members of the Committee, and indeed the whole House, the fact that a guillotine would be placed upon Report and Third Reading in a way that made it impossible for compensation to be debated in the time allowed.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Gentleman will recall that the guillotine was tabled only after the Bill had already been discussed for six hours on Report, without a guillotine, during which time remarkably little progress had been made.

Mr. Corbett: Had the Minister and his hon. Friends not been so bone-headed, but had taken more time to consult the quite legitimate range of interests involved in the legislation, some of that time could have been saved. Even if what the Minister says is true—

Mr. Hogg: Which it is.

Mr. Corbett: I accept that. However, that is no good reason for the Government to use their mailed fist to prevent proper discussion on the Floor of the House of important acres of the Bill. It is a shabby and a shoddy way to shovel legislation on to the statute book. That was to treat the House with contempt because, apart from its effect on us, it denied the voice to those who shoot for leisure or for competitive purposes. That is what is happening again today.
The background is important because, as I have said, it would have been more understandable that the Government should seek the motion had there been adequate debate at earlier stages of the Bill. That was not the case. I shall offer the Minister and the House an illustration of what this needless gag has done. Dealers and their proper actions and the control of them are a vital part of achieving better public safety, but that has never been discussed on the Floor of the House. Certain actions have

been taken on, for example, photographs on certificates, but the Bill contains no provision for section 5 dealers' certificates to carry a photograph of the holder. I am told that those certificates can be, and indeed are being, simply photostated and sent with an order as part of trading arrangements between dealers.
Even worse, there is no provision to check the character or the bona fides of those whom the dealers employ. I ask the House to think of the risk of illicit trade in weapons not just for criminal use, but possibly for terrorist use. There is a gaping hole in the Bill, yet the Minister is trying to persuade us that we have had adequate time to debate that issue.
The Opposition and other hon. Members have been prevented from discussing that important matter, and the same is to happen again today. The Minister has not yet told us why there is such a rush about the Bill and why the Government refused properly to consult and respond. The Minister will know that, for more than 12 months, the International Sports Shooters Liaison Committee has been begging for a meeting with him.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I find it difficult to make the hon. Gentleman's remarks compatible—he is asking why we were in such a rush—with those of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), who, apart from anything else, invited us to take the Bill on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Corbett: The choice of how the Bill was dealt with belonged to the Government and not to the Opposition. It is as simple as that. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will wish to come back to me on that point. It is a fact, is it not, that large parts of the Bill have never been discussed on the Floor of the House? Yes or no?

Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question that I put to him? How does he reconcile his present observations, which are blaming us for discussion, with those of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, who urged us to get on with the Bill without any delay at all?

Mr. Corbett: The Minister is being unusually confusing about the matter. A suggestion that the Bill might be taken on the Floor of the House does not mean that discussion would be curtailed or rushed. It depended upon adequate time being provided. The Government chose not to take up that suggestion. The House and others will note that the Under-Secretary of State is unable to dispute my point that large parts of the Bill have never been discussed on the Floor of the House. That remains the position.
I was saying that, for more than a year, the International Sports Shooters Liaison Committee, by letter and even by fax during the dispute involving letters and parcels, asked for a meeting with the Under-Secretary of State or the Home Secretary. That committee is not a gang of head bangers who want to shoot around the clock willy-nilly, but a group of responsible people who are experienced in the use of weapons. They want more effective controls on the possession and use of weapons. As recently as 14 October the Under-Secretary of State's private secretary had to tell Mr. Desmond Hughes
I am afraid that"—
"that" is misspelt, but never mind—
Mr. Hogg's schedule of engagements would not permit a meeting with you in the short time available before the Bill completes its Parliamentary passage.


The letter goes on to state that there could be a meeting at official level. I understand that view, in a letter dated 14 October, but it was not the first request that was made by that body: it was the umpteenth request. That illustrates the unwillingness of the Under-Secretary of State and his colleagues to consult those who have legitimate interests in the matter and a right to be heard.
In case he has inadvertently given a wrong impression, I inform the Under-Secretary of State that, as far as I am aware, not a single voice in the House wants to weaken the control of weapons. Nobody is calling for the indiscriminate right of any individual in this country to possess and use firearms. In fact, opinion goes the other way. The House as a whole wants more effective control of the possession, use and storage of firearms. The argument has been about ways in which that control might be achieved.
As it stands, the Bill has a small chance of achieving what we all want to achieve in terms of public safety. It will not, and, as has been acknowledged, cannot, prevent another Hungerford. At best, it has laid more work on a hard-pressed police force and might mean an additional 300 to 400 officers to ensure that it is carried out. If I might be allowed to say in parenthesis, this is at a time when the Under-Secretary of State and the Home Secretary—and the Prime Minister, no less—have told me that there is not 181,000 quid in the kitty to convert a building in my constituency into a police office. Yet, suddenly, extra officers can be found out of nowhere to police the extra powers that the Bill lays upon them.
The Bill is silent on better measures to detect and control the illegally held weapons that are used in crime. It is one of the ironies of this legislation that, compared with 1986, the number of firearms offences known to the police—that is, when weapons are fired, used as a threat, or used to cause injury—actually fell last year by 4 per cent. That total was 8 per cent. less than that in 1985. What problems are the Government trying to deal with?
We know that, last year, under this so-called law and order Government, there was a 12 per cent. rise in violent crime on the streets of our towns and cities. Last night the Birmingham Evening Mail was able to report that in the inner-city suburb of Handsworth
Robberies and assaults with intent to rob … had rocketed by 51 per cent. this year.
And thefts from the person—mostly purse and jewellery snatches from women and girls—had soared by an alarming 31 per cent.
That is the problem for the West Midlands police force, which the Home Secretary has said cannot have the 1,000 extra officers that it says it needs over the next three years to deliver the kind of service that it wants to deliver to the public of Birmingham and the rest of the west midlands. Yet apparently we can find 300 or 400 spare officers knocking around to deal with the consequences of this Bill.

Mr. William Ross: It is not a case of the Government trying to find extra officers. Surely it is a case of diverting existing officers from the duties in which they are presently engaged.

Mr. Corbett: The hon. Gentleman's point is well made. He put it far more accurately than I could. That is what will happen. From what the Home Office said on the back of the Autumn Statement earlier this week, we know that there will be a small increase in total police numbers. The

hon. Gentleman is exactly right. If he is not exactly right, I should be more than pleased to stand at the Dispatch Box and withdraw my allegation.
Because of the contempt with which once again the Government are treating the House, my right hon. and hon. Friends will vote against this heavy-handed guillotine. I hope that some Conservative Members will join us to reinforce last night's message. On behalf of our constituents, we are here, irrespective of party, primarily to hold the Government to account. The guillotine denies us that right, and that is why it is an offence and offensive.

Sir Hector Monro: I rather hope that I address the House for the last time on this infamous Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister highlighted the number of Divisions on Report. It had nothing to do with many of us who were interested in discussing the Bill, and we felt that it was quite the wrong action to take. If there was any blame at all, it lay with those who drew up the timetable motion. They should have ensured that so many Divisions did not take place, as so frequently happens with other guillotine timetable motions. My hon. Friend considered also that we took undue time in Committee. He really should do an apprenticeship on the Scottish Standing Committee. He would then know what serving time was like.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend will remember that I said that I had no criticism of the time that we took. It was used beneficially for everybody. I merely outlined the length of time; I made no criticism of it.

Sir Hector Monro: I am glad. We had an excellent Committee stage which, compared with many Committees on which I have sat, was of a reasonable length, bearing in mind the controversial nature of the legislation.
I have no personal interest to declare. What weapons I own will not be affected one way or another by the Bill. I have been involved because of my interest in shooting sports and because I feel that the Bill is manifestly unfair to many people. I have served on a police committee for 15 years and, indeed, was chairman of it, so I am wholly on the side of the police and support law and order 100 per cent. But I am afraid that of the many measures in the Bill only a few will reduce crime involving the use of rifles. We could have a far greater impact on armed crime by bringing back the death penalty, but Home Office Ministers seem to object to that most strongly.
Obviously, the Government had to act after Hungerford, if only to ensure that police procedures were implemented. All hon. Members who served on the Committee were behind my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), who produced so many constructive ideas. We appreciated how he felt about the importance of strict control of firearms, but we would all agree that we should not go too far and that we must be fair.
The Government's major failure was their failure to consult responsible shooting bodies, despite requests to do so, before the Home Secretary made his announcement in Torquay at the end of September 1987. If he had consulted, much of the antagonism to the Bill would have been removed and the Bill would be much more effective. I pay warm tribute to the chairman of the British Shooting


Sports Council, Lord Swansea, who did a tremendous job throughout the Bill's passage, particularly while leading his team in another place.
Many aspects have not been thoroughly discussed on the Floor of this Chamber, particularly those relating to the consultative committee and compensation. Yet today we are again on a timetable motion and the procedures of the House prevent us from discussing such subjects because they are not included in the Lords amendments. For that reason, the timetable motion is somewhat hypothetical because it provides time only for what we are allowed to discuss, which is of minimal importance.
We welcome the amendments because they are favourable to shooting interests. Throughout the Bill's passage, shooting interests have achieved notable victories, mostly against a stubborn Government who are determined to avoid any amendment, even when they have made major mistakes, such as they did on the sporting rifle. We argued at length on that in Committee and lost, but second thoughts in another place have produced a worthwhile Lords amendment.
It is particularly sad that there has been such an attack on genuine shooting sports interests. It is sad that a Conservative Government, who should be so knowledgeable about competitive shooting and country sports, have been involved in that. I am sad that, while we carried amendments in Committee on an all-party basis, many were reversed in this Chamber on Report. I am sad, too, that so much of the implementation of the Bill is left to police rules or Home Office guidance. We hear on all sides that chief officers of police are already interpreting the Bill as if it were law.
Some attitudes of the Minister have been difficult to follow. I have already mentioned the sporting rifle. One of the most depressing episodes involved the Government's attitude to the disabled. We welcome back those from the paraplegic games in the far east, but at the same time from now on we shall stop the disabled using three or four-shot self-loading rifles and enjoying the sport in which they may have participated for years, on a wrong premise. The Minister says that the fire power of a three or four-shot self-loading rifle—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I have allowed the hon. Gentleman a great deal of latitude. He should now relate his remarks more closely to the motion.

Sir Hector Monro: I am trying to show that we have not had time to discuss these matters on the Floor as I should have liked, and that our last chance to do so seems to be disappearing rapidly. I am worried that we cannot debate in depth either how the Bill affects the disabled or the consultative committee. We may discuss neither in detail today.
Most important, we have not had a chance to discuss compensation. The Minister did not introduce the scheme while we were in Committee. He gave an assurance that we could discuss it on the Floor, but the Report stage was timetabled, and we had no time to discuss it. This House, which is elected to represent people throughout the United Kingdom, could not discuss the compensation scheme with the Minister. To introduce a scheme offering £150 or 50 per cent. of the alleged value of a weapon is unfair for

the higher value weapons. Many a rifle costs more than £1,000 and the owner, who will have owned that weapon legitimately, will lose substantially. But we could not and cannot discuss the scheme because of the timetable motion, which is why the Minister is being unfair with us today.
An M14 carbine, which many people have bought for the enjoyment of their sport, costs about £500, and with a new barrel its value will be £1,000. The owner will be lucky to see £500 for it and there is no appeal. Compensation is a serious issue, which we have not been able to discuss. Today, I received a parliamentary answer and I thank the Minister for it, but evidence from one auction house and the trade papers is not a sufficient basis for compensation terms.
I have a heavy heart. I am an elected official of the National Rifle Association, the National Small-Bore Rifle Association, the Clay Pigeon Shooting Association, the British Association for Shooting and Conservation, and the British Field Sports Society. It is sad that those responsible bodies, which have done their best to lobby Ministers in every possible way, have not had a fair response. I am gravely concerned about the cost of the legislation, police manpower and firearm and shotgun certificates, but the Minister has not answered our questions on those matters. He owes us much more information today.
The Bill should not have been controversial. It should have been one on which the Committee could unite to support stricter and fairer controls in the interests of those with legitimate weapons. Whatever happens, I know that the Government will have their way. More important, the few Lords amendments which we may discuss are of small importance compared with the subjects which we may not discuss, but such is life in this House.

Sir Dudley Smith: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). The time has come when debate on the Bill should end and it should be implemented, but I am left with the impression—I am heartened by what my hon. Friend has said—that the vast majority of those involved in shooting regard it as an inconvenience, an irritation and, alas, a measure which in the end will have little result. Law-abiding shooting organisations are sad and bewildered. Only this afternoon I took two such bodies to the Ministry of Defence in an attempt to save a rifle range in the Warwick area. They are all thoroughly good individual citizens who have conducted themselves very well over the years in their sport. The Bill has been a bad experience because of the troubles with the votes and the Lords amendments to which my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries has referred.
I feel that, with the best of intentions, the Government overreacted following the terrible events of Hungerford. There should have been some reaction, but in this respect it was overkill, and it will not bring about the ideas that were predicted at the time. Of course I hope that it will, because no one wants to see anything like Hungerford happen again.
In those circumstances, it is more in sorrow than in anger that I make known my views, which I know are shared by many hon. Members who are not necessarily in the Chamber this afternoon.

Mr. Jerry Wiggin: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) has said. I am deeply sorry to hear that the Ministry of Defence is contemplating closing a range in his constituency where I have spent many happy hours. I would like to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who has effectively led the opposition to the Bill from this side of the House with the greatest of patience, competence and hard work. I am sure that that is something with which all my hon. Friends will agree.
Normally, I would be in favour of all guillotines. The time that we have wasted in the House in debating Bills without a timetable has been a farce. I will not trouble the House with the reasons this afternoon, but there is a very good case for timetabling all Bills. However, until such a practice comes in, and bearing in mind that the Select Committee on Procedure did take its first light step down that road in the last Session but one, the Government must be cautious before proposing a timetable motion. I believe that they panicked on the last occasion. We had overcome the burden of the Bill in the middle of the night, and we would have made good progress with it. I know that this has been mentioned before, but I think that it is worth repeating.
On the following day the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) and I and my hon. Friends who were opposed to the Bill agreed that we would have only one vote and then we would allow the Government to have the Bill, providing they allowed us to have the consultative committee that we requested. As the Government refused even that amazingly modest concession, Opposition Members were enraged, and I believe rightly so. I took no part in those further proceedings, but I believe that what happened should be on the record.
It is clear that the Government have no intention of allowing the Bill to go back to the other place, for reasons that I understand, but they are all modest improvements to the Bill—all of which I welcome—and I see no purpose in debating the amendments further. I cannot understand the neurosis that has struck the Government's business managers in proposing this timetable motion.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I agree entirely with what my hon. Friends the Members for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin) and for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) have said. There is no doubt that there is some good in the Bill, but there is also a great deal of bad. We have, at times with the co-operation and help of the Minister, improved the Bill, and I would pay some tribute to the Under-Secretary for his good humour and patience in Standing Committee, because there were undoubtedly occasions when he did—[Laughter]—sit down and talk to us about certain matters. There were times, too, when he changed his mind after due consideration of the argument.
Having paid that tribute, I must say that the shambles that took place in the House when the guillotine was imposed caused a tremendous amount of ill feeling. The Minister's implication that there was time-wasting and filibustering is complete rubbish. Yes, we did discuss for about six hours on Report various matters in the earlier

clauses of the Bill, but at no time did anyone in this place try to filibuster. There was an extremely long list of amendments, as well as many Government amendments, and not to allow us to continue discussing them has added a great deal of insult to the injuries already caused.
My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned compensation and the statutory expert committee, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro). Those are crucial matters that were not discussed on the Floor of the House. Many of us made fairly general and wide-ranging speeches on Second Reading and we discussed three or four clauses on Report, but many other crucial matters were not discussed at all.
What about the process of sleeving shotguns? What about some of the exemptions from controls for self-loading rifles and shotguns deactivated to a standard approved by the proof houses? What about the creation of the conterminous shotgun and firearm certificate? There has been some movement by the Government on some of those matters in the other place and we have had some results, but a number of crucial matters for our constituents—such as the visitors' permits and the dealers' certificates—were not discussed in the House because of the shoddy, shameful tactic of applying the guillotine.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare that there are times when it is necessary to apply the guillotine—for example, on Report if we are dealing with a Bill that has only a small number of amendments, when perhaps the debate is prolonged unnecessarily—but on this occasion we had a huge amount of material to get through. To use bully-boy tactics in those circumstances was wrong. I must say to the Under-Secretary and to my right hon. Friend that many people in East Anglia supported some improvement and tightening up of firearms controls, but what they find hard to accept is that debate in this place was curtailed. Many people are having their weapons taken away, and many other people fear that the new panoply of controls and structures will prevent them from enjoying their sport. I hope that that will not happen.
For example, some of my constituents enjoy rough shooting and wild fowling, but may not be used to dealing with the police when it comes to filling in forms and so forth. They may not be very knowledgeable when it comes to asking solicitors or friends how to apply for a certificate. Those people fear that the new structures will militate against them. Those of us who have been talking in this debate and have an interest in shooting have no problems in carrying on our sport, but there is a concern in rural areas that people who enjoy rough shooting and clay pigeon shooting will find it difficult in some circumstances to comprehend that good reason. I hope that they will not have any difficulties, but it is a pity that we could not have discussed this at greater length.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: All that my hon. Friend says about the difficulties that will be experienced by people in rural areas is even more true in the urban areas, especially the suburbs of London—one of which I represent—where a number of people especially enjoy clay pigeon shooting. There is no doubt that they have a real fear that they will find it difficult to get a licence from the Metropolitan police if the latter can find an excuse.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is right. I received a letter recently from someone who lives in a council bedsit


in an urban area. He has had a run-in with the police before. He fears that, if the wrong sort of policeman was dealing with his shotgun certificate, he could suffer because of that officer's prejudice. I hope that that will not happen. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—there may be difficulties in urban areas.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend has just told us about his constituent and friend. Is that the gentleman who keeps the shotgun under his bed, about which we were told last time we discussed the matter?

Mr. Bellingham: The Minister is wrong. I have had another letter from someone outside my constituency. I do not represent an urban area. However, the Minister is right that in Committee we discussed a constituent of mine who kept a gun under his bed, in a flat.
If some good comes out of the Bill—I am not saying that it is all bad—it will be the inculcation in many sporting and shooting people of the understanding that they must take more care of their weapons. There will be greater emphasis on security and on the care of weapons during transportation, for example, from a shooting ground back home. Within the shooting community, there is greater realisation of the responsibilities. In that respect, the Bill is to be welcomed.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows that I am concerned about practical shooting for the disabled. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries made his feelings clear. We are trying to encourage disabled people to participate in sport, to find their feet, as it were. We are trying to give confidence and pride back to them. Therefore, it is appalling to stop them taking part in target shooting, stalking or other forms of rifle shooting. The Minister knows that we have had this argument time and again, but it is sad that, as we put the Bill to bed, disabled people have not had—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot see anything in any of the Lords amendments relating to the argument that the hon. Gentleman is putting before the House. He should address his remarks to the motion.

Mr. Bellingham: I was about to refer to practical shooting, which was discussed at length in the other place. It is important to mention that the sport of practical shooting may soon become an Olympic sport. As a result of the Bill, we in this country will be prevented from taking part in that sport, which is sad. It is also sad that, for the first time ever, our citizens—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I fail to see what the hon. Gentleman's speech has to do with the motion before the House. He should address his remarks to that.

Mr. Bellingham: I certainly will. It is unfortunate that, when the previous guillotine fell, we were prevented from discussing many of those points.
We welcome the guillotine now. We bitterly regret the fact that the Bill was not properly discussed on the Floor of the House. The Minister must be left in no doubt about the fact that there was widespread support in the shooting community for a measure to improve firearms legislation and to improve the working relationship and co-operation

between the sporting community and the police. The Minister could have won the confidence and support of the shooting community.
It is sad that the Government felt minded to rush into the Bill and that the necessary consultation did not take place. The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that Mr. Des Hughes wrote to the Minister asking for a meeting on 14 October. I was sent a copy of that correspondence. Much criticism was levelled against the Under-Secretary and the Home Secretary for not consulting widely enough. They said at the time that they were consulting and that their doors were open. To keep the door shut during the final stages of the Bill is most unfortunate.

Mr. Wiggin: Does my hon. Friend agree that much of the difficulty that was created in regard to consultation arose from the fact that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) gave my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the green light from the Opposition Benches? One of the lessons of the House that one should have thought had been learnt 100 times over is that, when both Front Benches are in agreement, the Bill before the House is rotten.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend makes his point effectively, but that does not detract from the fact that Ministers said that their doors were open and that they wanted to have discussions and consultations with the shooting community. I know that some efforts were made. The Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary have indeed had many discussions and meetings, but it is sad that, in the final stages of the Bill, when a meeting was requested, an excuse was found not to have it.

Mr. Corbett: Although there was a green light from the Opposition, the hon. Gentleman should know that it was also on amber.

Mr. Bellingham: We appreciate that.
I do not believe that there is a single colleague who represents shooting intrests in the House who has not been lobbied furiously on the Bill. I think that every colleague is in agreement that there is grave disquiet and concern about the effects of the Bill on reducing crime, on tying down the police and, above all, on the excellent series of relationships between the shooting community and the police.
We cannot gaze into a crystal ball. I wish the Bill well, but I am pessimistic. We shall have to come back in about a year or two, because only then will we know its effects.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 252, Noes 175.

Division No. 466]
[5.26 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Batiste, Spencer


Alexander, Richard
Beaumont-Dark, Anthony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bellingham, Henry


Amos, Alan
Bendall, Vivian


Arbuthnot, James
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Benyon, W.


Ashby, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Ashdown, Paddy
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Aspinwall, Jack
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Atkinson, David
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Baldry, Tony
Boswell, Tim


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Bottomley, Peter


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia






Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowis, John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bright, Graham
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hill, James


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hind, Kenneth


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Howells, Geraint


Buck, Sir Antony
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burt, Alistair
Hunter, Andrew


Butcher, John
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Butler, Chris
Irvine, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Jack, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Janman, Tim


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Kilfedder, James


Carttiss, Michael
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cartwright, John
Kirkhope, Timothy


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Kirkwood, Archy


Chapman, Sydney
Knapman, Roger


Chope, Christopher
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Knowles, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Knox, David


Colvin, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Conway, Derek
Lang, Ian


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Latham, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Couchman, James
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Cran, James
Lightbown, David


Critchley, Julian
Lilley, Peter


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Livsey, Richard


Curry, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Day, Stephen
Lord, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Dickens, Geoffrey
McCrindle, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Eggar, Tim
Madel, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mans, Keith


Evennett, David
Marland, Paul


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Fallon, Michael
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Favell, Tony
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Miller, Sir Hal


Fookes, Miss Janet
Mills, Iain


Forman, Nigel
Miscampbell, Norman


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Forth, Eric
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fox, Sir Marcus
Moore, Rt Hon John


Franks, Cecil
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Freeman, Roger
Morrison, Sir Charles


French, Douglas
Moss, Malcolm


Fry, Peter
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Gale, Roger
Mudd, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neale, Gerrard


Gill, Christopher
Needham, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Nelson, Anthony


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Neubert, Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Gorst, John
Oppenheim, Phillip


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Page, Richard


Gregory, Conal
Paice, James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Patnick, Irvine


Hampson, Dr Keith
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Harris, David
Pawsey, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hayward, Robert
Price, Sir David





Raffan, Keith
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Redwood, John
Sumberg, David


Renton, Tim
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Rhodes James, Robert
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Riddick, Graham
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Thurnham, Peter


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Viggers, Peter


Rost, Peter
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Tom
Walden, George


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Shaw, David (Dover)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Ward, John


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Watts, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Wheeler, John


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Whitney, Ray


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Widdecombe, Ann


Speed, Keith
Wilkinson, John


Speller, Tony
Wilshire, David


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wolfson, Mark


Squire, Robin
Wood, Timothy


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon John



Steen, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes:


Stern, Michael
Mr. Stephen Dorrell and


Stevens, Lewis
Mr. David Maclean.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Eastham, Ken


Alton, David
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Anderson, Donald
Faulds, Andrew


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Armstrong, Hilary
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Ashton, Joe
Fisher, Mark


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Flannery, Martin


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Beggs, Roy
Foster, Derek


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Foulkes, George


Bidwell, Sydney
Fyfe, Maria


Blair, Tony
Galloway, George


Blunkett, David
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Boyes, Roland
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bradley, Keith
Golding, Mrs Llin


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Gould, Bryan


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Buckley, George J.
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Caborn, Richard
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Callaghan, Jim
Hardy, Peter


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Heffer, Eric S.


Clelland, David
Henderson, Doug


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hood, Jimmy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Corbett, Robin
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Cousins, Jim
Hoyle, Doug


Crowther, Stan
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Cunningham, Dr John
Illsley, Eric


Darling, Alistair
Janner, Greville


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
John, Brynmor


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)


Dixon, Don
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dobson, Frank
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Doran, Frank
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Douglas, Dick
Lamond, James


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Leadbitter, Ted






Leighton, Ron
Quin, Ms Joyce


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Radice, Giles


Lewis, Terry
Randall, Stuart


Litherland, Robert
Redmond, Martin


Livingstone, Ken
Richardson, Jo


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Robertson, George


Loyden, Eddie
Robinson, Geoffrey


McAllion, John
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


McAvoy, Thomas
Rogers, Allan


McCartney, Ian
Rooker, Jeff


McFall, John
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McKelvey, William
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


McLeish, Henry
Ruddock, Joan


McNamara, Kevin
Sheerman, Barry


McWilliam, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Madden, Max
Short, Clare


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Skinner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Marek, Dr John
Snape, Peter


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Soley, Clive


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Spearing, Nigel


Martlew, Eric
Stott, Roger


Meacher, Michael
Strang, Gavin


Meale, Alan
Straw, Jack


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Turner, Dennis


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Vaz, Keith


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wall, Pat


Mullin, Chris
Walley, Joan


Murphy, Paul
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Nellist, Dave
Wareing, Robert N.


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


O'Brien, William
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Neill, Martin
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winnick, David


Paisley, Rev Ian
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Parry, Robert
Wray, Jimmy


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Allen McKay and


Prescott, John
Mr. Frank Haynes


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Order of the House [25th May] be supplemented as follows:—

Lords Amendments

1.—(1) The proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion three hours after the commencement of the proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

(2) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to those proceedings.

(3) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(4) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration), a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

(5) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the expiry of the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

2.—(1) For the purpose of bringing any proceedings to a conclusion in accordance with paragraph 1 above—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair

and not yet decided and, if that Question is for the amendment of a Lords Amendment, shall then put forthwith the Question on any further Amendment to the said Lords Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown and on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in the said Lords Amendment, or, as the case may be, in the said Lords Amendment as amended;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining Lords Amendments as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown to a Lords Amendment and then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth agree or disagree with the Lords in their Amendment, or, as the case may be, in their Amendment as amended;
(ii) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in a Lords Amendment;
(iii) put forthwith with respect to the Amendments designated by Mr. Speaker which have not been disposed of the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendments; and
(iv) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments;

(c) as soon as the House has agreed or disagreed with the Lords in any of their Amendments Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith a separate Question on any other Amendment moved by a Minister of the Crown relevant to that Lords Amendment.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

Stages subsequent to first Consideration of Lords Amendments

3. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill shall, if not previously brought to a conclusion, be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of those proceedings.

4. For the purpose of bringing those proceedings to a conclusion—

(a) Mr. Speaker shall first put forthwith any Question which has already been proposed from the Chair and has not yet been decided, and shall then put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown which is related to the Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) Mr. Speaker shall then designate such of the remaining items in the Lords Message as appear to him to involve questions of Privilege and shall—

(i) put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown on any item;
(ii) in the case of the remaining items designated by Mr. Speaker, put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in their said Proposals; and
(iii) put forthwith the Question, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Proposals.

Supplemental

5.—(1) In this paragraph "the proceedings" means proceedings on any further Message from the Lords on the Bill, on the appointment and quorum of a Committee to draw up Reasons and the Report of such a Committee.

(2) Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith the Question on any Motion made by a Minister of the Crown for the consideration forthwith of the Message or, as the case may be, for the appointment and quorum of the Committee.

(3) A Committee appointed to draw up Reasons shall report before the conclusion of the sitting at which it is appointed.

(4) Paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(5) No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, the proceedings shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

(6) If the proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on the Motion shall be added to the period at the end of which the proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion.

Orders of the Day — Firearms (Amendment) Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Clause 1

PROHIBITED WEAPONS AND AMMUNITION

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 2, line 11, leave out from "to" to end of line 15 and insert—
(a) any firearm (not being an air weapon) which is not for the time being specified in subsection (1) of section 5, was not lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988 and appears to him to be—

(i) specially dangerous; or
(ii) wholly or partly composed of material making it not readily detectable by apparatus used for detecting metal objects; or

(b) any ammunition which is not for the time being specified in that subsection but appears to him to be specially dangerous,

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to deal with a problem that probably has not yet arisen but it may do so. The problem is the possible manufacture of plastic guns or guns made with non-metallic substances and capable of avoiding detection by detecting machines, especially at airports. I say that it is probable that such guns do not at present exist, but one cannot be wholly certain. There are guns whose metal components can be dismantled and arranged in a suitcase or briefcase in such a way as to make detection very much less likely.
The purpose of the amendment is to enable us, where appropriate, to bring into the prohibited class guns of the description that I have given. It is right to say that that power is subject to two saving provisions designed to prevent its being used oppressively. First, the order will be subject to the affirmative procedure. Secondly, the power will not be applied to those weapons lawfully on sale in Great Britain in substantial numbers at any time before 1988.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 3

GRANT AND RENEWAL OF SHOTGUN CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: No. 2, in page 3, line 22, leave out "number and"

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to clarify what was always the Government's intention. At no stage did we intend that chief constables should be able to use their powers, either under the Bill or under the principal Act, to limit the number of shotguns that a shotgun certificate holder could have. A number of my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), but also my hon. Friends the Members for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) and for


Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Wiggin), were concerned that the Bill did not make that plain. That concern was expressed again in another place when the amendment was moved. The amendment has the effect of saying that the chief constable has no power to impose a limitation on the numbers of guns held by a shotgun certificate holder. That meets what the Government always had in mind, and we are glad to give it statutory expression.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Although it is obviously far too late in the day to think about dividing the House on any of these amendments, I must admit to some unease that the other place has felt it right to introduce this one. Inevitably, it reopens the argument, which I have heard from chief constables and others, that the Bill treats shotguns as somehow different in lethality from other firearms and that in tightening the gun laws —perhaps because of the Hungerford massacre—authorities have concentrated too much on semi-automatic weapons when other weapons are perhaps still too easily available.
We know that there is little difference between the number of offences committed with shotguns—either the long-barrelled or sawn-off varieties and the number committed using a pistol or a rifle. I am obliged to draw the attention of the House to the fact that criminals do not seem to care particularly which weapon they use and are as happy to use a shotgun as they are to use a rifle or pistol, whichever is the easiest to obtain. Generally, shotguns are the easiest to obtain.
The debate in the other place focused on shotguns in their traditional role, for shooting game in the countryside, and only a little emphasis was placed on the issue of numbers, and then purely in terms of safe storage. What of the views of the chief constables? We often say in the House that we must strengthen the powers of the police to meet the crimes of violence that are so rife in our society, yet the amendment effectively denies them the power to impose any limit on the number of guns owned by an individual—a change included in the original Bill, which I welcomed. The amendment suggests that no justification need be shown for owning 10 guns or any number of shotguns.
Any ideas that the police might have formed as this legislation proceeded through Parliament, that they were to have a new ability to restrict the number of weapons held by an individual or to impose stricter conditions on the ownership of weapons over a given number, have gone by the board. As Earl Ferrers said in the other place:
In order to make it clear we are saying that the chief constable cannot impose arbitrary limits and we shall say so in the memorandum of guidance."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1160.]
Why not? The public are worried about the armouries of weapons held by some people and, so far as I know, public opinion has never expressed itself to be more concerned about rifles, pistols and semi-automatics than it is about shotguns. The public are worried about weapons that kill and injure people.

Sir Dudley Smith: I am interested to hear my hon. Friend's views, especially in view of his extensive knowledge of the subject after the

unhappy occurrences in his constituency. Does he agree that, by and large, apart from some specialists, there is no need for anyone to own more than a few weapons for the pursuit of legitimate sport? Does he agree also that, when a person has a whole arsenal, it predicates the thought that there may be undesirable consequences? As my hon. Friend said, the weapon that is the most popular and most used in robberies—alas, crime is growing not only in this country but throughout the world—is a sawn-off shotgun. Unless one is embarking upon a wave of terrorism, the automatic machine gun or rifle is not used as much as the shotgun. It is the shotgun that is the danger.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, because he makes my point for me. It is a fact that, although Michael Ryan used a semi-automatic, he was in possession of shotguns and, as was said in Standing Committee, had he chosen to use them, he probably would have killed roughly the same number of people as he killed with his semi-automatic weapon.
The public and the police are worried about the use of these weapons. How does the amendment reassure them? I admit that the issue of the security of weapons was considered in the other place in the debate on this amendment and was seen as the circumstance that might be used by chief constables to limit the number of weapons. That presupposes a police check on who has weapons and where they are kept, and we know that such checks will be rare.
Lastly, and I draw some hope from my understanding of the paragraph as now drafted, if a shotgun certificate specifies the description of the shotguns to which it relates, what exactly will that mean? Will it mean an individual description of each weapon, or something more general? If it is the former, does that not add up to numbering the weapons held? Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell me whether the memorandum of guidance will offer any guidance to chief constables about their attitude to weapons and whether they should consider being a little tougher about those who wish to have more than a pair of guns in their possession.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I was not proposing to intervene. In fact, I was about to rise to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) whether he would give way again. As my hon. Friend has already sat down, I shall comment briefly.
It would have been extremely damaging to legitimate shooting interests if the words "number and" had been left in the Bill. Contrary to what my hon. Friend said, many people can legitimately wish to keep more than just "a pair of guns"—to use his words—bearing in mind, among other things, the number of children in their families who may want to shoot when they get a little older.
I need a weapon for my young son who is learning how to shoot. When he grows up, I hope to keep it for my younger son when he grows a little older and learns how to shoot. In addition to my guns, I have my father-in-law's gun, so that he can shoot when he visits my farm. The Government are therefore right to delete "number and".
A further point is that the police will need an adequate description of shotguns kept by the certificate holder—although I do not know precisely what description will be required—and that meets the case that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury. The police will glean enough information from the certificate to judge whether


somebody has an armoury, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury fears, or whether the shotguns that are kept are legitimate. The shooting lobby feared the words "number and" because, despite the assurances given in the House, it seemed that some chief constables proposed to limit the number of shotguns to an unacceptably low number.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: By leave of the House, I shall speak again. I am pleased to say that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). I understand the argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), but for reasons similar to those given by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster I do not favour a limitation on the number of shotguns held by a shotgun certificate holder.
A number of steps have been taken in the Bill which will certainly improve security. There is, for example, the requirement to keep the gun in a safe place. I have in mind that guns should be locked away. In addition, a chief constable will be able to refuse an application for a shotgun certificate if he is satisfied that there is not a good reason for the applicant to possess a shotgun. The House will remember that we have defined "good reason" to include sporting competitions and the shooting of vermin. We have also provided for the notification of transfers and specified the information that should appear on the certificate. All those substantial measures are designed to tighten the control of shotguns, but we do not seek to impose a positive obligation on the applicant to prove "good reason" or to give a chief constable the power to limit numbers.
I shall make one further point about arsenals. If it were found that an individual was stockpiling guns on a large scale—of course, that would be clear from the description of each gun that the applicant had to give on the certificate—the chief constable would want to be satisfied that the safekeeping of the guns was adequate.
I shall not ask my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster how many guns he has in his house, but I imagine that there are half a dozen or so. He can easily keep them in a steel cabinet. A chief constable would, I am sure, be satisfied with that. If, however, someone had a stockpile of 20, 30 or 40 guns, the chief constable would be anxious to determine the level of safekeeping and security. That is a real means of control, and I hope that it commends itself not only to my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster but to my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, whose anxieties, which he ventilated so lucidly in Committee and again today, I understand.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 4

TRANSFERS OF SHOT GUNS

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 3, line 27, leave out "forty-eight" and insert "seventy-two".

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) who paid tribute earlier to the work of the noble Lord Swansea. It is right that I should say that the amendment is a reflection of the work done by Lord Swansea in the other place. The object of the

provision is to extend the period of loan in respect of which the borrower need not notify the chief constable of the loan.
Clause 4 is designed to ensure that the short-term borrowing of a shotgun does not have to be notified to the police but that long-term borrowing does. We had in mind an occasion, such as a shooting party, where a gun was broken or, conceivably, lost and one of the guests borrowed a gun from his host or a fellow guest. It would be nonsense to require the borrower or anybody else to notify the police of the transfer. The 48-hour proposal was an attempt to impose a realistic threshold, but in another place Lord Swansea suggested 72 hours. I cannot say that that is wrong. It seems reasonable, and on that basis I commend it to the House.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: The amendment is most welcome. The Minister will recall that when we discussed the matter in Committee he gave the example of someone turning up for a weekend shooting party without his gun. The original proposal was ridiculous because it meant that that person would be breaking the law. The threshold of 72 hours is much more sensible. I thank the Minister for supporting the Lords amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

SHORTENING OF BARREL

Lords amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 24, leave out
a self-loading, pump-action or revolver smooth-bore gun
and insert
any smooth-bore gun to which section 1 of the principal Act applies other than one which has a barrel with a bore exceeding 2 inches in diameter".

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a technical amendment of wonderful complexity. The House will recall that we amended the definition of "shotgun" to that which now appears in clause 2(2). We ought at the same time to have amended clause 6(1). We did not do so. The purpose of the amendment is to correct that defect.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 7

CONVERSION NOT TO AFFECT CLASSIFICATION

Lords amendment: No. 5, in page 4, line 35, after "which" insert "(a)"

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 6, 7 and 8.

Mr. Hogg: The amendments are designed to meet anxieties expressed by the gun trade and by hon. Members about the operation of the Bill. Some of the amendments to which I shall draw specific attention meet the point about sleeving made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) during our debate on the timetable motion.
Let me explain amendments Nos. 5 and 6. Some self-loading and pump-action shotguns have interchangeable barrels some of which are less than 24 in. long.


Without the amendments, if a previous owner of such a shotgun had at some stage—unknown to the present owner—screwed on a short barrel, that weapon would always be a prohibited weapon, even if the barrel had subsequently been unscrewed and destroyed.

Sir Dudley Smith: That is interesting. Is the case that the Minister cites hypothetical, or does the Home Office know of particular instances?

Mr. Hogg: It is not hypothetical, in the sense that it can clearly happen, although I am not aware of its having happened. My hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) will appreciate that in America, for example, self-loading or pump-action shotguns are sold with a range of barrels, some of which may be less than 24 in. long. Suppose that a previous owner in the United States had screwed on a short barrel. Even if that short barrel had subsequently been removed, or even destroyed, the present owner would still hold a prohibited weapon. That is nonsense, and the amendments are designed to eliminate it.
Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 are also designed to assist the gun trade and they are entirely reasonable. We are concerned here with two circumstances. The first is the repair of shotguns by re-sleeving. I understand that sometimes a shotgun barrel will be cut down to a small size and another barrel will be grafted on to it as part of the repair process. In the absence of these amendments, such a gun would at one time have a short barrel and could thus be treated as a prohibited—and certainly as a section 1—weapon. The amendment is designed to cover that problem.
6 pm
The other circumstance is similar, but not quite the same. The process of converting some rifles to shotguns can involve cutting down the barrel into a stump and grafting a shotgun barrel on to what was a rifle. Under the Bill's original wording, such a gun would remain in its former category and not be treated as a shotgun, which was not the original intention. I hope that the House will accept that the amendments are a positive improvement.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 6 to 8 agreed to.

Clause 9

PHOTOGRAPHS ON CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: No. 9, in page 5, line 23, leave out "two" and insert "up to four".

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is a Londonderry, East triumph. The hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) will remember how in Committee, on Second Reading and no doubt on Report he urged on the Government the need to increase the number of photographs. He will further recall that I steadfastly refused to accept that eminently sensible suggestion. Now, overcome with shame and grief, I have decided that the least I can do is to accept this amendment.

Mr. William Ross: I am pleased to have moved the Minister in one small respect. My only regret is that the rest of the eminently sensible suggestions from Londonderry, East were not accepted, too.
I want to pursue with the Minister the point raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) about photographs on dealers' licences. Has the Minister had time to consider that? If so, what conclusions has he reached about photographs for proper identification on such permits?

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause

REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES

Lords amendment: No. 10, after clause 11 insert the following new clause—

" .—(1) Where a certificate is revoked by the chief officer of police under section 30(1)(a) or (2) of the principal Act he may by notice in writing require the holder of the certificate to surrender forthwith the certificate and any firearms and ammunition which are in the holder's possession by virtue of the certificate.

(2) It is an offence to fail to comply with a notice under subsection (1) above; and that offence shall be punishable on summary conviction with imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.

(3) Where a firearm or ammunition is surrendered in pursuance of a notice under subsection (1) above, then—

(a) if such an appeal against the revocation of the certificate succeeds, the firearm or ammunition shall he returned;
(b) if such an appeal is dismissed, the court may make such order for the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit;
(c) if no such appeal is brought or such an appeal is abandoned, the firearm or ammunition shall be disposed of—

(i) in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree; or
(ii) in default of agreement, in such manner as the chief officer may decide;
but, subject, in a case within sub-paragraph (ii), to the provisions of subsection (4) below.

(4) The chief officer of police shall give the owner notice in writing of any decision under subsection (3)(c)(ii) above, the owner may appeal against that decision in accordance with section 44 of the principal Act and on such an appeal the court may either dismiss the appeal or make such order as to the disposal of the firearm or ammunition as it thinks fit.

(5) Subsection (4) of section 30 of the principal Act (surrender of revoked certificate within twenty-one days with extension in cases of appeal) shall not apply where the revocation is under subsection (1)(a) or (2) of that section and a notice is served under subsection (1) above; and paragraph 1 of Part I and paragraphs 1 to 5 of Part II of Schedule 5 to that Act (appeal jurisdiction and procedure) shall apply to an appeal under subsection (4) above as they apply to an appeal against the revocation of a certificate."

Mr. Douglas Hogg: First, on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that there is a printing error in the amendment. I refer hon. Members to subsection (3)(b), the first line of which includes the words "if such an appeal". The word "such" is an error; it should not appear.

Mr. Robin Corbett: Resign.

Mr. Hogg: That was a nasty suggestion.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to correct the Minister, but I understand that the mistake is in paragraph (a), not (b).

Mr. Hogg: It sounds as though we are approaching resigning territory. I do not see the word "such" in subsection (3)(a). It is not in my copy.

Mr. Speaker: It is in mine.

Mr. Hogg: Your view, Mr. Speaker, is likely to be authoritative. I am looking desperately for help with this.

Mr. Corbett: I had better make a confession. My right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) will give me hell when he notices this. He used to go through Bills and spot errors before Ministers did. The copy that I, and, it appears, you, Mr. Speaker, have contains the word "such" before the words "an appeal" in subsections (3)(a), (b) and (c). At least that is consistent. Is the Minister happier with that, or shall I ask him another question? I am not a lawyer, but I should have thought that, on grounds of consistency and clarity, this would be an improvement. It cannot do any great harm either way.

Mr. Hogg: This is the first time in a debate that I have had to say that I am excessively grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we can settle happily on subsection (3)(a). That is where the error is to be found. If we could deal with subsection (3)(a), I should be uncommonly obliged to you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The House accepts that.

Mr. Hogg: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This amendment represents quite an important change in the provisions in the Bill, and I commend it to the House. In section 30 of the Firearms Act 1968 the chief constable has power to revoke a firearms certificate. That power of revocation is subject to appeal. But what happens to a gun pending the hearing of an appeal? At present, the police have a limited right to require the surrender of the gun. For example, in section 46 of the 1968 Act they have power to search under warrant and the right of seizure when they have reasonable grounds to suppose that an offence has been or is about to be committed. But they do not have power to require the delivering up of the gun after revocation of the certificate on the general public safety grounds referred to in the new clause, whose purpose is to give them that power.
If an appeal against a revocation is successful, the gun and its ammunition, if any, will be returned. If it is not successful, or is not pursued, the new clause provides for the disposal of the gun. In the first instance, that should be done by agreement; in default of an agreement, it should be done on the adjudication of the court.
I hope that the House will consider it right to improve the circumstances in which a chief constable can require the surrender of a gun pending an appeal, and agree that we have got the balance about right.

Sir Dudley Smith: I broadly agree with my hon. Friend's support for the Lords amendment. However, throughout the proceedings on the Bill there has been an undercurrent of anxiety about chief constables responding too vigorously to the measure. Chief constables vary throughout the kingdom, and we want to keep a reasonable check on any actions they may take as a result of the legislation.
There is a large degree of discretion in refusing a gun licence to someone. If there are good and adequate reasons why one should not he given, I am sure that the whole

community would support chief constables and the police in withdrawing a weapon. If the subject is debated, and if the police propose that a weapon should he taken away under the provisions of the Bill, the owner of the weapon will have the right of appeal.
I hope that as we proceed with the implementation of the legislation the Home Office will keep a careful check on the weapons that are withdrawn or confiscated as a result of the new provisions. Situations can vary, and I say hypothetically that one thing could happen in Sussex and another in Worcestershire. Subsection 3(c) of the new clause says:
if no such appeal is brought … (i) in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree".
If a person does not appeal, or if he appeals and the appeal fails and he is not entitled to have a shotgun certificate or to own a weapon, will the police confiscate that weapon? Provided that he is not a criminal, will he be able to sell the weapon so that he does not suffer a penalty on the spot?

Mr. Hogg: I should like to reply to the question put to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith). The situation is comprehensively described in subsection (3) of the new clause. Perhaps I could take my hon. Friend through it, because this rather complicated procedure is dealt with in detail. Subsection (a) provides that if the appeal against revocation succeeds the gun or the ammunition shall be returned. If the gun holder appeals against revocation and wins, he returns to the status quo.
The second alternative is where the gun holder appeals, the appeal fails and the court holds that the chief constable was correct. In that case it will be for the court to decide how the gun and the ammunition are to be disposed of. The parties to the appeal will almost certainly make representations to the court about a fair manner of disposal. I envisage a sale, depending on the nature of the gun, to an authorised dealer, with the proceeds of sale being made available to the shotgun owner whose appeal has failed.
The third situation is where a revocation notice is served and an appeal is entered but not proceeded with. In other words, the shotgun or the firearms certificate holder does not go to court. In that case the subsections apply in the ways that are set out in the Bill. First, they will apply in such manner as the chief officer of police and the owner may agree. If there is such an agreement the gun will be dealt with in accordance with it. If there is no agreement the chief officer of police has a power to impose one. He may say, "We have not agreed, but I suggest that the weapon be sold and you receive the proceeds of the sale." If the gun owner is dissatisfied with the scheme put forward by the chief constable, he has the right of appeal to the court. Ultimately, the court will decide the situation that we have been discussing.
I hope my hon. Friend will feel that, although this is a slightly elaborate approach, at least the interests of the shotgun or firearm certificate holder have been preserved.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: We now come to Lords amendment No. 11, to which there are the following amendments: (a), in line 2, leave out 'of or over the age of seventeen'.

(b), in line 2, leave out 'seventeen' and insert 'fourteen'.
(c), in line 7, leave out 'and'.
(d), in line 9, at end insert

'and
(c) if the borrower is under the age of seventeen the occupier or servant in whose presence the rifle is to be used is aged twenty-one or over.'.

(e), in line 10, after 'person', insert
'of or over the age of seventeen'.

(f), in line 21 at end insert—
'(3) In sections 22(2) and 24(2)(b) Of the principal Act (exemption for minors in cases to which section 11(3) applies) after the words "of this Act" there shall be inserted the words "or section (Borrowed rifles on private premises) of the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988".'.

New Clause

BORROWED RIFLES ON PRIVATE PREMISES

Lords amendment: No. 11, after clause 14 insert the following new clause:

".—(1) A person of or over the age of seventeen may, without holding a firearm certificate, borrow a rifle from the occupier of private premises and use it on those premises in the presence either of the occupier or of a servant of the occupier if—

(a) the occupier or servant in whose presence it is used holds a firearm certificate in respect of that rifle; and
(b) the borrower's possession and use of it complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate.

(2) A person who by virtue of subsection (1) above is entitled without holding a firearm certificate to borrow and use a rifle in another person's presence may also, without holding such a certificate, purchase or acquire ammunition for use in the rifle and have it in his possession during the period for which the rifle is borrowed if—

(a) the firearm certificate held by that other person authorises the holder to have in his possession at that time ammunition for the rifle of a quantity not less than that purchased or acquired by, and in the possession of, the borrower; and
(b) the borrower's possession and use of the ammunition complies with any conditions as to those matters specified in the certificate."

Read a Second time.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I notice that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary did not rise to his feet. That is why I have risen. It would probably be better if he spoke to the Lords amendment first.

Mr. Speaker: I shall take the amendments first.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I share my hon. Friend's enthusiasm for the fact that I was able to support him wholeheartedly on the second amendment that we discussed. It would make me much happier if he were able to support my amendment. For the life of me I can see no good reason why he should not do so. I forbore from commenting while we were on the timetable motion, but I agree with my hon. Friends who said that the Bill gives the overall impression to those of us in the legitimate shooting lobby, and especially to those in the British Field Sports Society, which I have the honour to chair, that the Government do not care for the interests of the legitimate shooting lobby. To a large degree, the Bill tramples upon those interests, with no great malice, but with unfortunate results. One of the ways in which that impression could have been put right was by the Government using the opportunity of the Bill to remedy a clear anachronism in the law.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) said that he welcomed the history lesson. Perhaps he will not mind my taking him back to the distant times in which I was growing up and learning to shoot. Unfortunately, my children refer to those times as the times when the dinosaurs roamed the earth. It was not as far back as that, but it was before the Firearms Act 1968. In those happy days we had a Prime Minister who was a keen sporting shot. He used to appear quite regularly in the national newspapers sporting a pair of plus fours and was seen on the grouse moor on 12 August. I do not know whether he was also a keen stalker, but certainly many shooters who enjoy shooting grouse and other wild birds also enjoy the very old and skilled art of stalking.
In order to be proficient at stalking, it is important at an early age to learn to handle a rifle properly, under proper supervision. I had the good fortune to go to Scotland when I was a boy in my early teens to learn how to stalk, being supervised either by my father or by a professional member of the shooting forest in which I was learning. I also learnt how to shoot stags safely and without danger to others.
In 1968, under a Government of a different political persuasion from ours, the right of a boy of 14 to 17 to shoot under such supervision was unfortunately removed. I do not think that many people realise that it had been removed. I certainly did not realise it, and I have a more than sneaking suspicion that the Minister did not realise it. I do not think that the Home Secretary realised it either. I am certain that my many friends in Scotland, who have perhaps been allowing young people to shoot under supervision on their estates, did not realise it. Looking at the rather complex provisions of the 1968 Act in the early hours of this morning, accompanied by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, I noticed that there appears to be no doubt that in that Act boys and girls—I must not be accused of being sexist in these matters—who wish to go out stalking or to go after a rabbit with a 22 are banned from doing so.
Their Lordships have introduced a provision in clause 11 so that an estate rifle can now be borrowed by somebody over the age of 17 and may be legitimately used. It is a matter of some astonishment to me that the Bill got as far as the House of Lords before that point was made and it was noticed that, otherwise, an estate rifle could not be used by anybody other than the firearm certificate owner. I understand that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary is about to commend that amendment to the House. This would have been a marvellous opportunity to bring the Bill into line with sections 22, 23 and 24 of the principal Act of 1968 by making a sharp differential between what is allowed at 17 and what is allowed at 14.
Unfortunately, in that principal Act, the effect of that differential would not allow 14 to 17-year-olds to shoot, although I have a strong suspicion that that was what was intended, and an even greater suspicion that that is what most people thought it actually did. Here we have an opportunity to show those in the shooting fraternity that the Government support them, wish to be as helpful as possible and wish to encourage the training of young people in the safe and accurate use of rifles for sporting purposes. Sadly, that opportunity is being missed, and my hon. Friend the Minister has been kind enough to tell me that there can be no question of the Government supporting my amendments. I ask him to tell the House


what benefit he thinks there is to the general public, what extra safeguard is contained in the provision as it now stands that my amendments would remove, and why it is that the Government are not prepared to accept the amendments.
This missed opportunity is a great pity. Young people of that age can acquire substantial skills, so denying them that opportunity makes this a thoroughly bad law. I hope that if my hon. Friend will not accept my amendments today he will, at some other opportune moment, reconsider the position and give our youths the chance that those of us who are older enjoyed in our youth—to learn a skill that they will enjoy fully as adults.
It would he a great pity if I and others who own farms cannot take out young people with a 22 rifle to teach them how to shoot rabbits, or even at targets, in the way that we, as young people, were taught. My wife has some godchildren whom I know she would like me to take out on my farm—my hon. Friend the Minister will know what I am talking about. I am sad that the Government's attitude will prevent my doing so.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) did not rise initially, but his amendment comes first, so I shall call him before I put the Question on the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor).

Mr. Bellingham: I beg to move amendment (a), in line 2, leave out
'of or over the age of seventeen'.
The amendment is obviously similar to some of the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). However, it is slightly more simple.
I know that some among the sporting fraternity have suggested that perhaps we should not delve into this part of the law because of the illegal acts that have taken place in the past involving young people using stalking rifles. Many in the other place took the view that perhaps it was best not to discuss the subject, but just pass over it. However, I feel that we should discuss this in detail and get my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us exactly what the position is. I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster has said. We want to encourage young people. A young person of 14, 15 or 16 can go shotgun shooting or clay pigeon shooting under supervision. However, what about the young person who wants to try shooting with a small bore, when stalking in a deer forest, or even to kill vermin and rabbits? Surely it is better for him to put his toe in the water so that he can decide whether he likes the sport.
There is another problem. Let us take two lads at school, who are both in their officer training corps or combined cadet force and shoot with .303s, or shoot on the school range with .22s. Let us say that those two lads decide to take their holidays with their parents in Scotland and both want to try their hand at stalking. One lad happens to live in the country and the other in a large city. The former applies for a firearms certificate and gets one, but the other lad applies and does not get it. I do not agree with Lord Ferrers that anybody in the 14 to 17 age group can apply for and obtain a firearms certificate. Anybody in that age group who applies for a firearms certificate for a stalking rifle in London or Manchester would not have a

cat's chance in hell of getting, it. As a result of the two lads going on holiday, one would be able to pursue his sport and the other would not. That is ridiculous.
The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster about encouraging youngsters is important. I did not have the opportunity to go stalking until I was well into my 20s, but I know that many people had the chance to go stalking in their teens. Anyone who has a feel for, or a love of, the countryside and for these pursuits will know that it is important to encourage youngsters at an early age, and that it would be wrong to restrict their taking part in the sport. In every other pursuit—not just country sports—youngsters in that crucial teenage category can play a part, under supervision in many cases, but in other cases without restrictions.
To say that young people in this category must go to the chief constable to get a certificate is most unreasonable. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is right to say that it will put an unnecessary dampener on the enthusiasm of many young people and prevent them from finding out about a sport by putting their toe in the water to decide whether they like it. To tell them that they must wait until they are 17 is ridiculous.
What happens if one of the sons of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster wants to try out a .22 at home? He can use that gun on the range at school, under supervision from a master, or he can use it at a club. What happens when he wants to use it at home, in a completely safe and secure environment and to take a practice shot? If he is under 17, he cannot do so. It is laughable and ludicrous that my hon. Friend cannot go on to a safe area of his farm where he has a range set up and on which he is shooting, and encourage his son to do the same, because if he is caught doing so he will be breaking the law. My hon. Friend the Minister must explain what the Government are doing about this.
I welcome Lords amendment No. 11, and I must give credit where credit is due. There was a lengthy debate in the other place about the so-called estate rifle. A number of their Lordships went on at great length about the absurd situation whereby people on an estate in Scotland or Northern Ireland who go out on a stalk cannot use a gun without a certificate, even under strict supervision. We welcome Lords amendment No. 11, but the opportunity to clarify the position of young people should be grasped. We must encourage youngsters, and we must make the law workable, sensible and credible. My hon. Friend the Minister knows as well as I do that if this part of the Bill is passed many people will break the law inadvertently. I ask him to use this opportunity to make a clear statement on exactly where we are going and to give us some idea of how we get over this unfortunate hurdle.

Sir Hal Miller: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). Some of the debate has been a little esoteric. Not all of us are children of successful practitioners at the Bar with vast estates in Scotland, or have godfathers who are similarly equipped. However, what about the person who potters around the farm with a .22 to shoot rats, rabbits or starlings? I hope to bring my son up learning the safe handling of a comparatively cheap but accurate enough weapon so as to equip him later in life for more serious endeavours. The suggestion that one's son, under supervision, cannot go around one's haybarn with a .22 looking for a rat is the difference between the amendments tabled by my hon.


Friends the Members for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) and for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), as the amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster provide an element of supervision which is necessary at that age, although I was free from that encumbrance.

Sir Dudley Smith: I have some sympathy with the case made by my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham) and for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor). However, some difficulties arise. Without trying to anticipate what my hon. Friend the Minister will say, surely the whole thing comes down to supervision and there is a far greater chance of proper supervision if the young person is older rather than younger.
We have all heard of tragedies. I know two families who have been involved in tragedies through the wrong use of rifles. Guns are dangerous things, which have to be treated with respect whether one is 14, 65 or 70. Provided that respect is inculcated at an early age, and the child is made to realise that a gun is a weapon of destruction, perhaps everything will be all right. However, supervision varies enormously. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster looks dubious. I am sure that he provides the very best supervision, but I am certain that in some other cases supervision would be cursory and therefore quite dangerous.
I should have thought that the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster would have met the point. While I understand the anxieties of my two hon. Friends, I feel that we need to be fairly cautious about reducing the age, because young people in an urban environment would never get the opportunity to use a sporting rifle—that is probably just as well—whereas for somebody brought up on a country estate or a farm it would become second nature.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend accept that a young person of 14 is likely to be much more amenable to supervision than a 17 or 18-year-old? The supervision of a 17 or 18-year-old is likely to be very much more cursory than the supervision given to a 14-year-old. Therefore, is there not a great deal of good sense in the amendments tabled by my two hon. Friends, who know a great deal about shooting and sport?

Sir Dudley Smith: I accept that argument, and I consider it reasonably compelling. In contradiction to that, we know that the younger people are, the more irresponsible they can be, and although they accept the tuition that they receive, they can play fast and loose. Difficulties can arise and tragedies happen in a moment. There are no second chances.
Although I accept there is quite a good case for my hon. Friends' proposals, they still fall short of what should be in the legislation. Therefore, I do not support their amendments.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Sir D. Smith) for the support that he has given to the Government's case on this matter, and I shall adopt the greater part of his argument.
It might be helpful if I were to outline the Government's position on new clause 11, and then turn to the amendments that have been tabled by my two hon. Friends. In regard to new clause 11, I respectfully suggest that the House should agree to the Lords amendment. This amendment concerns estate rifles and it received considerable support in the other place when it was moved by Lord Kimball. It meets the established practice on many estates in Scotland and elsewhere of allowing guests to borrow an estate rifle while under supervision and to use it for stalking purposes. Hitherto, that has been an unlawful practice, and we wish to put it on a regular statutory basis.
The safeguards appear on the face of the new clause—the borrower is over 17, the loan is limited to a rifle and not to any section 1 weapon, the use must be confined to the occupier's land and of course, must be with the occupier's consent and must comply with any conditions on the certificate. Most important, the use must be supervised by a certificate holder, though the certificate holder may be an agent of the lender who is the occupier.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister confirm that the present practice of illegally borrowing and using an estate rifle is quite a serious offence which can carry not only a substantial fine but a term of imprisonment? Are we to believe that many people have been breaking the law with impunity for many years?

Mr. Hogg: The answer to the latter question is yes. The use of estate rifles in the way that we have been discussing has been widespread. The great majority of borrowers did not realise that they were acting unlawfully. We are trying to put the practice, which is wholly respectable, on a proper statutory basis, and I am inviting the House to do just that.
I shall turn to the question of age, because I recognise that it is a matter of considerable importance. The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) seek to introduce an age threshold of 14, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham)—I do not think that I parody his views, and I apologise if I do—seeks to do away with any age threshold.

Mr. Bellingham: indicated assent.

Mr. Hogg: I see that he acknowledges that fact.
I do not wish to be unfair, but if he got his way we would be talking about the use of guns by young persons of any age—they could be 11, or 12 or six or seven—depending on the supervision or the supervisor's choice. We need to be clear what we are talking about. We are not talking about any old gun; we are talking about section 1 rifles, some of which are extremely powerful.
The law at the moment is clear. The general proposition is that, without a section 1 certificate, one may not possess a section 1 firearm. That is subject to a number of provisos, most notably those contained in clause 11 of the principal Act. A person over the age of 14 may possess a firearms certificate. The ordinary procedure applies: the applicant applies to the chief constable. The application will have to be supported, or at least endorsed, by his parent or guardian. That is certainly the case for a shotgun application by a 15-year-old and I believe that it applies to an application for a section 1 certificate. The chief


constable then has to determine whether to grant it, and, in the event of the chief constable refusing a certificate, there is a right of appeal to the court.
The argument that has been put forward is essentially twofold. First, there is the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster to the effect that it is a proper method of providing instruction. The slightly different argument, which has also been touched on, is the desirability of allowing the occasional guest to use a 22 for the purpose of shooting the odd rabbit in a field. I shall deal with the two arguments separately, because they are distinct.
The concept of training and instruction by a father on an estate implies at least reasonable continuity; otherwise, we are not really talking about training and instruction. If my hon. Friend is proposing to take his son out for training on a fairly regular basis, the proper thing to do is to apply for a firearms certificate. He may say, "I will never get one." I hope that he will forgive me if I say that if he does not obtain a certificate, it is because the chief constable and, ultimately, the courts, think that it is inappropriate to give him one. I am sceptical about the proposition that a young man who cannot obtain a certificate under the ordinary tests should be allowed, on a continuous basis, to use a section 1 gun because of the proviso we are contemplating introducing in new clause 11. That seems to be a serious lacuna in my hon. Friend's argument.
My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is a highly responsible man and would most certainly provide close supervision over the activities of his son or, with more difficulty, over his godson. However, the amendment he has in mind does not provide for that high level of supervision. It provides for any old supervision, which might not necessarily be direct and precise supervision. The amendment to which my hon. Friend is addressing his remarks is designed to provide cover for continuous use in circumstances which may not be well controlled. We are dealing with section 1 guns, many of which are highly dangerous.

Mr. Bellingham: My hon. Friend is being a little unrealistic. We are talking not necessarily about continuous use but about lads who go on holiday to Scotland. The son of my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Sir N. Bonsor) will almost certainly receive his firearms certificate at the age of 15, but what about the punter who lives in a flat in a town? What chance does he have of obtaining a certificate?

Mr. Hogg: We have to look at the consequences. The new clause, as amended by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster, provides for continuing use. It may not always be continuing, but often it will be. My hon. Friend must ask whether that is what he is seeking to justify. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West

said, no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster's son will obtain a certificate. However, he asked about people living in a town. If the chief constable refuses to issue a certificate because, in his view, the grounds are not met, and if that decision is supported by the court, we should not try to disturb the position in which an applicant fails on the primary grounds.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: I should like to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham). My hon. Friend the Minister is wrong when he talks about continuous use in the context of the stag. I am talking about people who go to Scotland for their summer holiday, not about year-round training. It is wrong to say that, because training is not continuous, it is not useful. I ask my hon. Friend to consider that point.

Mr. Hogg: That is not the case. We have to look at what can happen. My hon. Friend the Member for Upminster is suggesting that he should be able to provide training for his son. I understand that. Instruction implies a continuing process. It may happen over a number of years or over an extended period in one year. If that is what my hon. Friend is anxious to do—it is a respectable thing to do—he should apply for a firearms certificate on behalf of his son. His son can have a certificate as long as he is not under the age of 14.

Sir Nicholas Bonsor: Another great distinction between what my hon. Friend is saying should happen and what I am asking for is that I am asking for boys of 14 to 17 to have the right to borrow a rifle, not to possess it. There are plenty of occasions when it would be proper for a boy to borrow a gun, but I would be reluctant for that same child to have the right to possess one.

Mr. Hogg: I was about to come to that. I am concerned about the ad hoc use. We are talking about a powerful weapon. The provisions which govern the ad hoc use of shotguns are contained in section 11(5) of the Firearms Act 1968 and they are limited. I shrink from the idea of enabling a boy, on an ad hoc basis, to use a high-powered rifle. It may be that the supervision provided by my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster would be wholly adequate—I am not trying to argue to the contrary—but he has to contemplate the possibility of many people doing the same thing under supervision which is much less precise.
We must look at consequences. We are dealing with high-powered rifles. For that reason, I cannot commend to the House an acceptance of the amendments, although they were moved with great skill and lucidity.

Amendment (a) to the Lords amendment negatived.

Lords amendment No. 11 agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 12 to 27 agreed to, some with special entry.

Orders of the Day — Broadcasting and Terrorism

Mr. Speaker: I have to tell the House that I have selected the amendment on the Order Paper.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move.
That this House approves the Home Secretary's action in giving directions to the BBC and IBA to restrict the broadcasting of statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists.
On 19 October I told the House that I had issued directions to the BBC and the IBA requiring them to refrain from broadcasting statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists. The imposition of any restrictions on broadcasting, however well justified, is a serious step. This step was taken only after long and careful consideration by the Government. It is because of the seriousness of the matter that I emphasised, when I made my statement, that the House should be given an early opportunity to debate, and I hope endorse, the action that we have taken.
Those who live by the bomb and the gun and those who support them cannot in all circumstances be accorded the same rights as the rest of the population. This is a principle that the House has accepted many times when passing legislation to give the police and the courts certain carefully limited but exceptional powers for the prevention of terrorism. The principle is contested by the Opposition, but I believe that it is accepted by the majority of our constituents. It is common sense. We shall soon be putting to Parliament new and stronger proposals that will bear particularly on the funds of terrorist organisations.
Those who practise and support terrorism and violence should not be allowed direct access to our radios and television screens. In a nutshell, that is what the Government's action is all about. The same conclusion was reached long ago by the Republic of Ireland, which imposed similiar restrictions.
One essential point about the effect of the notices that I issued deserves repeating. The notices do not restrict the secondhand reporting of events. Comparisons with the extensive reporting restrictions in countries such as South Africa are misleading, especially when they are made by members of the South African Government. The notices restrict only the direct access of members of these organisations and their supporters to the air waves. Their activities and the words they utter can still be reported, as they are, in the press, but we are denying them the ability to appear on television and thereby obtain a spurious authority and respectability. In the words of last week's Irish Independent,
Sinn Fein are not being silenced … merely put in their place.

Ms. Clare Short: I fail to understand why it is all right for someone's words to be reported by another individual but not for them to speak for themselves, unless the Government are frightened that Sinn Fein or Ulster Defence Association persons speaking for themselves would be more appealing and attractive than the Government want them to be. I cannot understand the logic of allowing the words to be reported but not allowing the originator of the words to use them in public.

Mr. Hurd: In that case, the hon. Lady will not agree with the notice, because it is based on the distinction between the reporting of events and words and the direct access of members of proscribed organisations, or those uttering words in support of them, to people's television screens in their living rooms. There is a clear distinction in reality, and I shall return to that point before I conclude.

Mr. Robert Adley: In view of my right hon. Friend's understandable comments about South Africa, and in the light of reports that other countries are queueing up at the doors of Her Majesty's Government to remove from our television screens people whom they regard as terrorists, would it not be appropriate at some stage for the Government to separate terrorist groups such as the IRA and ETA—which have access to the ballot, the freedom to live where they want in their own land and to stand for election—from legitimate freedom fighters who oppose state terrorism, such as the Palestine Liberation Organisation or the African National Congress, which have offices in London?

Mr. Hurd: My hon. Friend is trying to draw me on to ground on which I do not intend to tread today, although it is very interesting. These notices are and will remain confined to Northern Ireland organisations.
As the House knows, the notices that I have issued contain two exemptions—one for parliamentary proceedings and the other for statements made during an election. We were concerned not to take measures that might trench on parliamentary privilege. We must remember the position of broadcasters in relation to parliamentary matters. Under the licence and agreement, the BBC is charged with providing an impartial account, day by day, of proceedings in both Houses. It might be difficult for the corporation to carry out this requirement—especially with regard to debates on Northern Ireland—if restrictions were to apply to our proceedings.
A similar point applies to elections. Under the Broadcasting Act 1981, the IBA has a statutory duty to treat impartially matters of political or industrial controversy or current public policy. In the annex to its licence and agreement, the BBC has undertaken to fulfil a similar responsibility. We believe that it will be possible to carry out this requirement fully in everyday circumstances as the notices will not prevent the broadcasters from reporting indirectly the activities of the organisations concerned.
An election period is different. The ability of candidates and their supporters to make a personal appearance on radio or television is crucial to balancing the interests of political parties in obtaining access to the electorate. That, after all, is the basis of the broadcasting requirements under the Representation of the People Act 1983. The application of the restrictions during an election period would face the broadcasters with an insurmountable conflict between their legal duty to implement the notice and the legal requirements of impartial treatment of political controversy. Such a position would raise significant legal difficulties.
For those reasons, we decided that a candidate representing one of the organisations concerned and his supporters should be free to make personal appearances on radio and television during election time, provided—this is important—that their statements are made in support of the candidate and his constituency contest.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I listen with amazement to what my right hon. Friend is saying. It is perfectly obvious that one tries to gain the support of a community for election to office over many weeks and months, not over a three-week election period. Does it not instantly put one party at a disadvantage to another, and is that a fair system?

Mr. Hurd: I do not agree with my hon. Friend. There are, as the law provides, special circumstances surrounding an election period. We are trying to prevent the broadcasting authorities being put in a position where they cannot carry out their responsibilities, as defined, during that period. In everyday circumstances—between elections —the notices will not prevent them from carrying out their duties.
In statements made soon after my announcement, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed to beckon to Sinn Fein to take advantage of the exemption, which I have just mentioned, to make its case to the British people at the forthcoming Govan by-election. Indeed, he talked in the House about the near certainty of its doing so. In the event, it decided to ignore the right hon. Gentleman's invitation.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hurd: The words "near certainty" were used.

Mr. Hattersley: The word to which I take exception is "invitation", not "near certainty". The idea that I was inviting Sinn Fein to do that is no doubt how the Home Secretary will conduct this debate—an alternative to argument being abuse.

Mr. Hurd: There is no abuse. The right hon. Gentleman dangled the prospect before Sinn Fein. That is precisely what he did, and his reaction following my announcement was to talk about "near certainty." It was widely reported in the press. If the right hon. Gentleman does not like the word "invitation," I shall substitute that he dangled the prospect before it, which is precisely what he did.
Sinn Fein decided to ignore that prospect. If press reports are right, it thought hard about it and decided against. Perhaps it was wise to do so. The same legal requirements that ensure an even-handed treatment of candidates by broadcasters at election time could not have given Sinn Fein the great publicity bonanza that the right hon. Gentleman might have envisaged. The same rules that make necessary the exemption would prevent it from gaining much advantage.
The right hon. Gentleman's prediction was not the only one that has so far proved false.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: Does the Secretary of State agree that the battle with those who espouse terrorism in the north of Ireland must be fought not in Govan, in this country or in the Republic of Ireland, but on the streets of Belfast and on the roads of places such as south Armagh, where I live? We can judge the restriction that the right hon. Gentleman has introduced only by the effect that it will have there, not by the effect that it will have anywhere else. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this restriction is furthering, rather than restricting, the propaganda weapon that is used?

Mr. Hurd: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's point, which is the core of the argument. Before doing that I was

trying to deal with the points that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, rightly or wrongly, raised when he commented on my announcement.
All sorts of predictions have been made, not only the one made by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. We read on good authority that the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) would be taking his seat, as if there were no requirement of an oath of affirmation or allegiance. We read that the "Any Questions" programme, on which the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) appeared in Antrim last week, would be disrupted, but she will confirm that that did not happen either.
To be fair, it is natural that there should be some anxiety and controversy at the start of such an arrangement—as there is, from time to time, in the Republic. There are some who, for reasons of their own, prefer to remain permanently confused about the scope of the notices. However, I believe that my announcement and the terms of the notices were as clear as we could make them.

Mr. Clive Soley: I am worried about the way in which the right hon. Gentleman is presenting his argument. The point that he is missing, which is the core of the argument and forms the basis of our accusations against him, is that he is allowing the paramilitary groups in Northern Ireland to set the political agenda. Every discussion and every headline during the past few weeks has been about the paramilitaries. It is not a question of Govan or of Mr. Adams taking his seat. The point is that the right hon. Gentleman has allowed the paramilitaries to set the political agenda. That is why they have made the headlines, day in, day out, for the past two weeks.

Mr. Hurd: I agree that that is part of the core of the argument. I am trying to clear away points that have been raised and predictions that have been made—which, incidentally, have turned out to be quite false—before I deal with the core of the argument. I am trying to deal with detailed matters, and I shall then return to the principal concern, on which I feel just as strongly as the hon. Gentleman.
There will, of course, be occasions when the broadcasters, as now, have to use their judgment in deciding whether to include particular material in a programme. One such issue concerns the question whether a person is representing a named organisation at the time he appears on a programme. It is true that a member of an organisation cannot be held to represent it in all his daily activities. The key to the issue is the word "represent." When a councillor is speaking in Northern Ireland, it is not the subject about which he is talking that will decide whether his speech can be broadcast directly, but whether he is talking on behalf of one of the named organisations. —[Interruption.] I am trying to clarify a point that I think is now clear to all, other than to those who wish to remain permanently confused.
As the director of Radio 4 made clear this morning—although he did not like it—a Sinn Fein councillor speaking about council matters on behalf of his group will not be allowed direct access. There will be borderline cases where that distinction will require careful judgment, just as the broadcasters had to exercise careful judgment under


the previous arrangement. However, in practice I do not believe that the decision will be too difficult in the vast majority of cases.
In the reactions during the days—

Mr. David Winnick: The Home Secretary, in his statement on 19 October, said that he had no criticism as such of the broadcasting authorities. If he does not believe that they have gone out of their way to interview spokesmen for those who argue for and justify terrorism, why does he not leave these matters to their editorial judgment?

Mr. Hurd: We did, of course, consider that, but we thought it more sensible and honest for the Government to bring forward and to take responsibility for this measure. That is what we have done. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman. If we had simply said to the broadcasters, "We want you to exercise your judgment, albeit very difficult" and had not brought the matter before the House, would that have been a better way to achieve the objective? It would not. The way in which we are handling the matter—including this debate, during which various views will be expressed, and not all of them in support of the Government—is a much more straightforward way of setting about matters.

Mr. Michael Foot: I apologise for not being in the Chamber for the first few minutes of the right hon. Gentleman's speech. He mentioned borderline cases and how comparatively easy it would be to solve them. Did the Government consider introducing a change in the law to deal with these matters? The passing of this motion will have no effect on the law in Ireland or anywhere else. The Government have sought to deal with these matters by Home Secretary edict, backed by a motion that will have no binding effect in the courts. Did the Government not think that the appropriate method would be to change the law of the land to deal with such a departure from free rights and free speech?

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman is contradicting his hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who suggested that we should have handled the matter in a roundabout way and relied on the broadcasters to use their judgement to achieve the same effect. I carefully read what Lord Scarman said, as, no doubt, did the right hon. Gentleman. I do not believe that there is a serious question about the legal basis of the notices. That being so, it would have been deeply quixotic to have proceeded in any other way. There is precedent and there is the law.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I have already given way once to the hon. Gentleman. I should like to continue my speech.
In the reactions during the days following my announcement, there were some who felt, as the Opposition do, that the Government had gone too far, and there were others who felt that we had not gone far enough. Opposition Members continue to claim that this is a major incursion upon the right of freedom of expression. As I have made clear tonight, that cannot be so because broadcasters remain free to report the activities of those organisations and the actual words used by their

representatives. Some of my hon. Friends and Members on the Unionist Benches have argued that the right even to report statements by those organisations should be restricted. That would be going too far. There is the obvious case of the aftermath of a terrorist outrage when it is essential, as a matter of public information, that any admission of responsibility by a terrorist group be fully reported.
Some of my hon. Friends and Unionist Members would like the Government to proscribe Sinn Fein. As they know, we believe that proscription is a fitting measure only for organisations that are actively and primarily involved in terrorism. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has frequently pointed out, the status of Sinn Fein and the UDA is kept carefully under review by the Government. There has been criticism, and it will continue, from those two extremes—one saying that we have gone too far and the other that we have not gone far enough. I believe that, both inside and outside the House, the balance that we have struck will achieve wide general support.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: My right hon. Friend is obviously aware that his announcement received a very bad press in America. Does he agree that it is imperative to stress that the Republic of Ireland has had such restrictions since 1960?

Mr. Hurd: I was about to make that point.
I wish to pick up something that I heard the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) say before I made my announcement, but following press reports of what it was thought I would say. He put the greatest stress on the need for even-handedness. He criticised our proposal mainly because he thought that it did not include the UDA and the UVF. I cannot say that we took his advice because it had always been absolutely clear to us that the proposal would have to be even-handed. It is, and I hope that when he replies to the debate he will be fair enough to temper his views accordingly.
Always on these occasions—as has happened with interruptions this evening—the argument is that by depriving the IRA of one weapon we are actually giving it another and bigger one—

Mr. Winnick: Precisely.

Mr. Hurd: The hon. Gentleman confirms that point. It is argued that we are giving the IRA a propaganda advantage across the world that will outweigh the disadvantage of being shut out of our own television screens. That argument deserves rather closer dissection than it usually gets. An Irish-American or an Irish-Australian who is already sympathetic to the IRA will not have his opinions changed, one way or the other, by this proposal. An Irish-American or an Irish-Australian, who is naturally, temperamentally and intellectually sympathetic to the Fianna Fail or Fine Gael parties in the Republic, will not go through some great anti-British convulsion because we are practising what the Governments of both those parties have practised in the Republic for many years past. I suggest that he is more likely simply to be surprised to learn that we have not, for years past, been doing the same as the Dublin Government.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: What will the Irish-American citizen say when he reads that the British Government are abandoning the first amendment to the American constitution?

Mr. Hurd: I have never supposed that we were subject to the first amendment to the American constitution. The hon. Gentleman has not begun to answer my point, which was a clear answer to many of the criticisms that have been made.

Mr. David Alton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: I shall conclude my remarks soon, but I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Alton: I welcome what the right hon. Gentleman has said this evening. It is proper that we should bring our law into line with that of the Irish Republic. Does he agree that security and justice run hand in hand? While we are right to bring our security laws into line with those of the Irish Republic, our laws concerning justice and the way in which we administer it in Northern Ireland through the Diplock courts should also be brought into line with the law of the Irish Republic by replacing those courts with three sitting judges.

Mr. Hurd: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has constantly kept the matter under review, as, of course, I did, but from time to time he has given his decisions and beliefs on that point. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would say what he did say in the first part of his intervention, and I am grateful for the support from the Opposition parties that it conveyed.
I refer now to what I regard as the core of the matter. Particularly since the outrage at Enniskillen a year ago and the renewed intensity of the terrorist campaign, I have several times thought how difficult it is for us in this House to understand not the facts, which are clear enough, but the emotions produced by such events in that part of our country. Right hon. and hon. Members who represent Northern Ireland do what they can from their different viewpoints to enlighten us, but they would be the first to admit that there is a barrier to overcome. The words they use, the way they put things, and their occasional intense preoccupation with ancient rivalries may sometimes lead us on this side of the water to forget how real and intense are the anxieties that they are seeking to convey to us. But we must not allow ourselves that luxury of forgetfulness.
It seems to me that, in recent months, two such anxieties have come to the fore with a new intensity. The first is the anxiety that so many guilty terrorists escape conviction or, if convicted, spend too little time in prison. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is, of course, fully aware of these concerns. His proposal to allow courts to draw certain inferences from an accused who insists on remaining silent makes clear his understanding of that point. I do not want to go further into that matter, because it is his business, not mine.
The second anxiety is the one that we are discussing today. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) will recognise this point from his time in the Army. When there is a terrorist attack and television screens carry to mourning people pictures of tears and bloodshed, it is hard for us on this side of the water to understand the outrage that is felt when, soon afterwards, there can appear on the same screens,

particularly in Northern Ireland, people who, just keeping on the right side of the law, justify and glory in what has been done and threaten more of it. That is the difference between direct access and the report. It is not surprising that a member of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, a member of the UDR, or any law-abiding citizen of the Province finds it hard to understand how we can be wholly serious in our efforts against terrorism if that kind of triumphalism is acceptable.
But there is more to it than that. It is not simply that people are affronted—we can live with affront—by the direct access of men of violence and supporters of viollence to television and radio. That direct access gives those who use it an air and appearance of authority which spreads further outwards the ripple of fear that terrorist acts create in the community. The terrorist act creates the fear and the direct broadcast spreads it. The men of violence and their supporters have used this access with skill. They hope not to persuade—this is where we get into the cosy luxury of discussion which is unreal—but to frighten. So far from being outlaws hunted by the forces of law and order and pursued by the courts, they calmly appear on the screen and, thus, in the homes of their victims and the friends and neighbours of their victims. We are dealing not just with statements that are offensive, but with the use of the media to deliver indirect threats. We owe the people of Northern Ireland the effort of imagination that enables us to understand what that experience is like and to understand how the fight against terrorism is hindered by it.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the right hon. Gentleman's argument not presuppose that the case of the IRA is so powerful, that people's attachment to democracy is so weak and that our abhorrence of violence is so inadequate that such an argument being put forward on television can bring us all to our knees? If that is the case, why did the right hon. Gentleman not do something about it over these last 10 years?

Mr. Hurd: There speaks the English broadcaster. There speaks the person who thinks that broadcasting and television are just a matter of whether or not one persuades. We are not talking about that; we are talking about fear and the creation of fear. The hon. Gentleman may disagree with the argument, but he clearly was not listening to it. His intervention was unreal.
All those who know Northern Ireland, whatever their opinions, respect the integrity and wisdom—as I learnt to do—of Dr. Robin Eames. Archbishop and Primate of the Church of Ireland. On the evening of my announcement, Dr. Eames said:
Sinn Fein have made no secret of the fact that they are in favour of the armed struggle. I have to represent at times those who are the objects of that armed struggle and I know what they've suffered. We know where they—the terrorists —stand. Is any good going to come from people who've suffered so much being subjected to more of their propaganda?
I hope that no one in this House will scorn or neglect that expression of feeling.
Of course, this decision will not by itself solve the problem or defeat the terrorist. If that is a criticism, it is something that we accept. As my right hon. Friend has constantly made clear, no single measure is going to defeat the Provisional IRA or, indeed, the Protestant paramilitaries. We are deliberately not announcing a package of measures, but reaching and implementing decisions one by one, as we review the whole range of issues and


possibilities that can further help protect a free democratic society from the evil of terrorism and its associates. This is a serious decision, and we shall keep its operation under careful review, but I am satisfied that it is needed, and I have no hesitation in commending the motion to the House.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: I beg to move, to leave out from 'House' to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'reaffirming its determination to defeat terrorism in Northern Ireland, refuses to support the Government's restrictions on broadcasting and broadcasters, believing those restrictions to be incompatible with a free society and likely to assist rather than frustrate the terrorists by providing them with the opportunity to argue that the Government will not allow the wide expression of opinion which is essential to democratic debate and peaceful change.'.
I am not in the least surprised that the Home Secretary should have made the accusation about the Opposition in general and about me in particular encouraging Sinn Fein to participate in English by-elections. Such allegations are an alternative to thought and argument and an option that is far easier than defending what the Government propose on its dubious merits. That sort of allegation is typical also of the Government's dangerous arrogance. One of the Government's least attractive characteristics is their belief that, in all matters affecting security, anyone who disagrees with their judgment or criticises their record is acting against the national interest.
Let me make it clear at the beginning of the debate that I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not propose to take any lessons in standing out against terrorism from the Government who gave free passage out of this country to the murderers of WPC Fletcher, rather than risk a row with Libya; nor do we propose to take lectures on defeating terrorism on the premise that what the Home Secretary now proposes will make the smallest contribution to the destruction of terrorism and the defeat of terrorists in Northern Ireland.
The argument is not about whether something that will help in a mutually accepted cause will work and whether it should be applied, but about the merits of it, even on the basis of what the Home Secretary said.
Anyone who for a moment believed that the IRA might even be inconvenienced by the broadcasting ban which the Home Secretary now proposes must have been absolutely disillusioned by the demonstration of the results of that ban on "The Media Programme" on Channel 4 on Sunday. I remind the Home Secretary what happened. A Sinn Fein councillor was interviewed on the effects of the ban. There was some understandable disagreement among lawyers whether the interview could be legally broadcast since the proscription is so imprecise that the Government cannot define its boundaries. In the end, the IBA advised against the interview being broadcast and the programme makers, perfectly legally, showed pictures of the interview without the original sound and dubbed the Sinn Fein councillor's voice with the voice of a commentator or actress. To the casual viewer, the interview was in no way different from one where the actual voice was employed. Anyone turning on the broadcast two seconds after it had begun would have assumed that he was seeing the literal interview. I cannot see what damage is done to terrorism

and terrorists in Northern Ireland by the Government making themselves look ridiculous by imposing that sort of meaningless and pointless restriction on broadcasters.
Apologists for this restriction attempt to justify it with two assertions which originally appeared in the Home Secretary's statement and which I shall quote exactly as he made them. First, broadcasts by representatives and supporters of terrorist organisations cause
widespread offence to listeners and viewers.
Secondly, terrorists
draw support and sustenance from access to radio and television."—[Official Report, 19 October 1988; Vol. 138, c. 885.]
Those two distinct arguments are not incompatible, but they are separate claims and must be justified separately. Too often—the Home Secretary did it again today—the allegations that the IRA and UDA will be helped rather than harmed by the ban is countered with arguments about causing public offence. Concern about banning broadcasts because they cause offence is greeted with claims that at least it will defeat the IRA. I propose to examine individually the two distinct reasons given for limiting broadcasters' freedom—public offence and the defeat of terrorism.
I do not doubt for a moment that the sight of a supporter of the IRA justifying a bomb outrage is offensive to most British people. It is offensive to me. The bogus apologies and hypocritical statements of regret are more offensive still. But the question we must answer is not whether that causes offence—undoubtedly it does—but whether in a free society causing gross and justifiable offence is sufficient reason for limiting the broadcasters' right to broadcast.
If the Home Secretary has any doubts about how steep and slippery is the slope at the top of which he stands, he has only to ask the BBC for transcripts of the phone-in programmes of the past 10 days about his restrictions. His many supporters were virtually unanimous on one point: they found IRA spokesmen offensive and did not wish to see or hear them. But that was only the beginning. They went on to list other individuals and organisations which they found equally offensive and which they believed should also be proscribed and prohibited. If the Home Secretary has not been given the information about these supporters of his, for who, I suspect, he has little time, and who no doubt cause him a great deal of embarrassment, he has only to consider the question asked by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley). I do not know whether his question, which received no answer, was asking for an extension or pointing to the logic of the Home Secretary's position, but either way he was saying that, once such a ban is started, there is no way of knowing how far it will go or where it will lead.
The criterion of causing widespread offence to viewers and listeners is dangerously subjective. It is only necessary to ask some questions which follow from its application to see how great a contagion it can cause. Is anything which causes widespread offence to be banned? If not, who decides within that category what widespread offence should be banned and what should not be banned? How is widespread offence to be measured? Widespread offence is a meaningless concept. It is one of those catch-all omnibus, all-embracing criteria which suit the convenience of authoritarian Governments. It is the sort of criterion which should not be used in a free society. I have no doubt that in Eastern Europe and South America there are all


sorts of prohibitions on broadcasters, broadcasts and newspapers because widespread offence would be caused. Widespread offence, although I feel it in this particular, is not an adequate excuse for censorship in a free society.

Mr. William Cash: Will the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to explain why, early in 1977, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, at a dinner in Stormont, called for a ban on terrorist interviews and went so far as to say that the BBC's treatment of Northern Ireland news was sometimes ill advised to the point of disloyalty? How does he square his comments with those of that Labour Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

Mr. Hattersley: In two ways. First, in that particular, my right hon. and noble Friend to whom the hon. Gentleman referred was simply wrong. More important, he was so wrong that he did not put it to the Cabinet, of which he, some hon. Friends and I were members. If he had, he would have received the same sort of reaction from the overwhelming majority that I am trying to describe this evening—that banning the expression of a view because it causes widespread offence should not be acceptable in a free society, no matter how genuine the offence or how much offence is caused.
In a free society, limitations should be imposed on broadcasts and broadcasters when, and only when—[Interruption.] I see that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is congratulating his hon. Friend on making that point. He said, "Well done." [Interruption.] He was just having a little chat. Perhaps he would like to consider the next point.
In a free society, limitations should be imposed on broadcasts and broadcasters when, and only when, it can be conclusively demonstrated that real and desperate damage would be done to members of that society if the restriction were not imposed. We can all think of occasions when prohibitions might be necessary. Usually in such circumstances—a recent kidnapping case is an example—broadcasters apply self-restraint. But a ban should be imposed only when damage to society is substantial and certain and can be demonstrated. Certainly no such case can be made for what the Government now intend. The evidence suggests that the ban will help rather than harm the terrorists' cause.
During the whole of this year, independent television has broadcast four minutes of interviews with supporters and associates of Sinn Fein. Some three minutes 59 seconds of those interviews were highly critical, in that the interviewer demanded to know of Sinn Fein how it could even attempt to justify the horrors and enormities for which the IRA was responsible. The total amount of interviewing time was less than four minutes. Some of the material might have been screened twice—on both the early news and ten o'clock news, but four minutes of new material was the total in a year. How much assistance does the Home Secretary think those four minutes gave the IRA? If he thinks that it might be significant, he will be appalled to learn that, thanks to the ban which he introduced two weeks ago, three or four times as much broadcasting time on Independent Television News has been devoted to discussing and describing the IRA and sometimes even defending it. That is a direct result of what the Home Secretary has introduced.
Naturally, that has been broadcast in reported speech. The Home Secretary seems to believe that there is something peculiarly attractive to potential IRA recruits in seeing the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) speak straight into the camera. I find that impossible to believe. The overwhelming probability is that his restrictions will make Sinn Fein more attractive to the weak-minded viewers than it was two weeks ago. Its ghastly, fawning apologies and its craven justifications will not be broadcast directly, so television interviewers will not be able to challenge it. However, from time to time, when there is a bomb outrage, its hideous sentiments will be quoted in reported speech. I have no doubt that its opinions will be insinuated into broadcasts through surrogates, denying Sinn Fein membership but expressing the views of Sinn Fein.
The potential gain—even for those who accept the implication of the Prime Minister's cliché about the oxygen of publicity—is miniscule. The potential loss is enormous. I ask the Home Secretary this directly: does he believe that Noraid has missed the opportunity to tell Irish Americans that the president of NBC News said on British television and radio last week that Britain is now the only Western democracy with broadcasting censorship? Does he believe that broadcasting that opinion, right or wrong, in the United States will help or hinder Noraid?

Mr. Tony Marlow: What about Ireland?

Mr. Hattersley: If the hon. Gentleman wants to shout, "What about Ireland?", it is for him to answer the point, but he will struggle to understand it if I repeat it to him. The fact is that it is the president of NBC News who made that point.
I ask the Home Secretary again: does he not believe that Noraid is even now flooding Irish-American areas of America with the NBC president's judgment that we have introduced censorship? Does he believe that that has been enormously helpful to his cause?
I ask the Home Secretary a second question: does he not believe that the republican areas in Northern Ireland will be equally flooded with leaflets quoting Mr. P. W. Botha's endorsement of the Government's new controls over broadcasting, and emphasising the South African president's opinion that the Home Secretary's suppression of press freedom in Britain justifies the suppression of press freedom in South Africa? Does he think that Mr. Botha's views are being spread in republican areas, and, if so, is that helping our fight against the IRA or hindering it?
The important point is not the damage caused to Britain's international reputation, great though that is, or the harm that the Government's justification of the prohibition has done to our standing in the world, but the help that their action has provided to the terrorists, who are able to exploit in every possible way the pointless action that was taken two weeks ago. They have been presented with the opportunity to argue that the weapons of political debate and democratic success have been denied them; in consequence, they have been offered the opportunity to argue that what they choose to call the armed struggle is the only way in which they can advance their cause. The damage that the Government are doing to the fight against terrorism must not be obscured by the clear absurdity of their actions. All the analyses of how this


ban will work show that prohibition is a joke—but it is a bad and dangerous joke, and one which will damage the cause that the Home Secretary pretends to be pursuing.
The extent of the absurdity can be measured by the confusion about what can and cannot be broadcast. I remind the Home Secretary of the procedure used to notify the broadcasters of the true position. Quite properly, the BBC was told of the Home Secretary's proposals the night before he announced them to the House. I understand that they became effective at the moment of his announcement, and the BBC and the IBA had to prepare themselves for their instant application. The BBC was told the previous night, and it took legal advice. Two independent sources agreed on the areas which the proposals covered. In his statement, the Home Secretary interpreted his order far more liberally than the BBC's lawyers—one house lawyer and one independent lawyer—believed to be the case.
The BBC's lawyers were again consulted. They reminded the BBC that the law is not what the Home Secretary announced in the House of Commons, but what the courts decide. They had no doubt that the order was a great deal more repressive, shall I say, and comprehensive than the Home Secretary had made out. Meetings were held between the Home Office and the BBC. The BBC continued to argue that the Home Secretary's representation of the law was more liberal than the law allowed.
After a further meeting, the Government agreed to send out a further document, which amended the scope of the original words and ensured that the law would be applied in the way in which the Home Secretary had apparently believed was already embodied in the words. That document contains this paragraph:
Whether at any particular instance he
in his letters and regulations, the Home Secretary does not consider the possibility that women may be involved in such matters—
is representing the organisation concerned will depend upon the nature of the words spoken and the particular context. Where he is speaking in a personal capacity or purely in his capacity as a member of an organisation which does not fall under the Notice (for example, an elected Council), it follows, from that interpretation, that paragraph 1(a)"—
that is the prohibiting paragraph—
will not apply.
As a result of that clarification, the BBC now believes that Sinn Fein councillors can broadcast as councillors, as distinct from being members of Sinn Fein. It is therefore possible for them to give interviews on exclusively local authority matters. In short, the fears of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis) are justified. Sinn Fein will be allowed to represent itself as the caring guardian of local interests, but it will not be cross-examined on its support for terrorism.
Notwithstanding that, and the helpful Home Office advice concerning Sinn Fein broadcasts about butterfly collecting, the IBA and the BBC still regard the order as so imprecise that they are not sure what can and cannot be broadcast over wide areas. As I understand it, they are known in the trade as grey areas. I have no doubt that, sooner or later, the BBC or IBA will be forced to test those grey areas in court.

Mr. Mallon: The right hon. Gentleman has done a service to the House by highlighting that anomaly. It is one of the confusions that the Secretaryof State has referred to.

If, on a Tuesday, Sean Bloggs makes a statement as a member of Armagh council, that, in effect, in law can be covered by TV and radio. If on a Thursday, as a spokesman for Sinn Fein, Sean Bloggs makes the same statement, it cannot be broadcast. Is that not the essence of the confusion and ambiguity that exists?

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman's point is obviously, and dangerously, right.
I discussed with the BBC some of the possible ambiguities. It gave me an example yesterday of a great fire occurring in the centre of Belfast in which a number of people were killed. An eye witness to the fire was a councillor, who was also a Sinn Fein councillor. That eye witness account could be broadcast if the fire had not been caused by the IRA. It certainly could not he broadcast if it were caused by the IRA. The BBC does not know how it would proceed if no one knew how the fire had been caused. There is no way that one can describe this situation without realising the nonsense of the Home Secretary's position and the disrepute into which he brings the Government.

Mr. Hurd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Hattersley: Although the Home Secretary now shakes his head, the Government concede that the guidelines are confused and contradictory. I believe that they know that, sooner or later, they will be tested in court, because I had the pleasure of watching the Minister of State being asked on television last Sunday what broadcasters should do when they are confronted with those so-called grey areas.
Of course, the Minister of State's answer was fatuous, but it was also terrifyingly revealing about the Government's view of press and broadcasting in a free society. He said that, before broadcasting a programme on Northern Ireland, directors and producers should telephone the Home Office and ask, "Is this covered by your restriction, or not?" No free broadcaster in a free society, in preparing a broadcast, would or should want to phone the Ministry of the Interior and ask whether the item was acceptable for transmission to the general public. I am assured that broadcasters, from both independent television and the BBC, simply will not accept such a regime.
The idea that broadcasters should have to ask the Government's permission before they transmit news and current affairs programmes is unacceptable in a free society. It is what we always believed happened in countries that do not enjoy our traditional liberties. Broadcasters must make their own decisions about what is right under the law. Under such a Government as this, the Home Office cannot be trusted to interpret the law, especially since, on the evidence of its advice on classification and further reclassification, it has no idea how far the law extends and what it covers.
Any accurate account of what the Government propose—a restriction on free broadcasting, which is confused and ill defined, which cannot harm the terrorists and probably will help them, which enables Mr. P. W. Botha to compare his regime to our democracy and which would not be constitutionally acceptable in other democracies—leaves unanswered a crucial question: what are the Government's real motives in pursuing so indefensible a policy? Why do


they humiliate themselves and damage the interests of the country for no tangible gain? I believe that the folly has two causes.
The first cause is the Prime Minister's authoritarian instinct—the mindless reflex that automatically wishes to suppress and extinguish those views that she finds objectionable, whatever the real cost. We all recall the careful leaks that described the Prime Minister's outrage at a specific broadcast. Whether it was wise and right to retaliate is not the sort of consideration on which the Prime Minister spends much time. The IRA is assisted and our liberties are damaged because the Prime Minister was offended by the broadcasters' judgment over a single programme. On such an occasion as that, the Prime Minister is almost as contemptuous of our liberties as she is of her Cabinet colleagues.
The second reason why we are presented with this example of the authoritarian and the absurd combining in a single policy is the Government's hope to create the illusion of activity. Part of the tragedy of Northern Ireland is that there is no quick, easy or certain solution. One of the burdens borne by every Government, certainly by this Government, is the demand, especially from the less responsible newspapers, for them to take new initiatives. The call to do something is rarely accompanied by descriptions of what that something should be. That was the unthinking response by some newspapers to the horrors perpetrated in the summer. Of course, the Government responded with promises that something would be done when they were not sure what that something would be.
For a Government faced with the agonising responsibilities of Northern Ireland, which I in no way diminish, there are only two possibilities. One is capitulation, which is as unacceptable to the Opposition as it is to the Government. The other is holding fast and steering a steady course—defeating terrorism under the law, refusing absolutely to copy the conduct of the terrorists and carefully avoiding any risk of being represented as the enemy of the liberty that the Government aim to defend. That steady course must be built on a real determination to understand and rectify real grievances. It will not be helped by the suppression of free broadcasting, and it will not be helped by gimmicks.
The suppression of free broadcasing will not even placate the Government's mindless critics, the people who demand tough action without even considering its morality or its real effects. Meanwhile, the terrorists will see the Government thrashing about and will take pleasure and comfort from the absurdity of the Government's position.
We regret that the Government have behaved so foolishly. We shall not endorse their foolishness. We shall vote for our amendment.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seriously misrepresented what the Government are seeking to do. He suggested that a form of censorship is to be imposed on the reporting of what the terrorist organisations in Northern Ireland do merely because they are to be denied the ability to appear on television or to

have their words broadcast. I do not remember which way the right hon. Gentleman voted when we debated whether proceedings in the House should be televised—

Mr. Hattersley: For.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: That makes my point for me. One of the arguments that first persuaded us to let the broadcasters into the Chamber, and subsequently to make it possible in the near future to have the televisers, was the argument that simply to report the House of Commons was to deny it the place that it should have in the centre of our society, and that only by bringing the cameras into the Chamber could one give it an immediacy and impact on the country overall that would return to it that pride of place that all of us seem to believe it should have. If one holds that argument about this place, I do not see how it is possible to argue, as the right hon. Gentleman did, that to deny broadcasting and television to the terrorist will not inevitably reduce his ability to have an impact on the audience that he would wish to persuade.
I should like to jog back a few years, to an evening when, in one of the television rooms in the House, I was watching a programme about Northern Ireland, its politics and the terrorism that has beset it. Sitting beside me was Mr. Don Concannon, the former Member for Mansfield, who was a distinguished Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office. The programme started with a long shot over a derelict part of Belfast and, taken with the commentary, gave the impression that the dereliction had been the result of IRA bombing, so much so that Concannon exclaimed, "Why do they do it?" and I found myself in complete agreement with his sentiment.
The pictures that we had been watching and the commentary that we had been listening to gave the impression that that dereliction was the result of the IRA's activities, when in fact it was the result of the bulldozers clearing away some of the bad housing that has beset Belfast for so long to make way for new. But those who did not know Belfast as well as I do would not have been able to make that judgment. They would have concluded from that shot and that commentary that the dereliction showed the death and destruction on a gigantic scale that the IRA had been able to wreak in the capital of Northern Ireland.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman's story is extremely worrying. He is talking not about a representative of the UDA of Sinn Fein speaking on television, but about what he claims was a misrepresentation of a scene of dereliction, as if that too should be banned. Is that his logic, and does he intend to control all programmes that are made about Northern Ireland?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: With the greatest respect to the hon. Lady, I have just started my speech. I am sure that she would like me to encompass everything that I have to say in 30 seconds so that she can make her speech, but I am afraid that she must bear with me, as I want to develop the point that I am making.
I was referring to the reaction of a former Minister with responsibility for Northern Ireland and my own reaction as someone who has taken an interest in the affairs of that troubled Province. Our reaction was, "Why do they do it?" Why do the television people think that they can put on a programme of that kind and expect their audience to understand what had caused that dereliction? Or had they some other purpose? No doubt the companies concerned


would say that they used the shot merely as a means of tracking in at the beginning of their film. But that shot, like so much else, raises yet again the question, "Why do they do it?" Why, in 1979, did the BBC make a film featuring a supposed IRA roadblock at Carrickmore? Fortunately, that film was never shown because its existence became known before it could be put out, but why did people at the BBC even think it worth creating such a film? Why did they think that their audience was longing to see the programme, "Real Lives—the Edge of the Union", which gave Martin McGuinness and the IRA such a good opportunity for television coverage? Having seen the programme, was anyone any clearer about the problems of Northern Ireland? Did it help our understanding in any way?

Ms. Short: Yes.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I am glad that the hon. Lady can say that she gained something from that programme, because I certainly did not.
When the then Home Secretary suggested that the programme should not be shown because of its propaganda value to the IRA and the governors of the BBC agreed with that view, there was a walkout—presumably to prove that neither the Government's concern nor the wishes of the board of governors cut much ice with the news staff. Like my earlier examples, that again prompts the question, "Why do they do it?" If one believed in a conspiracy theory, one might suggest that there are those in the media who are politically prejudiced in favour of the goals that the IRA claims to have set for itself—a united, extreme Socialist Ireland by way of the bullet and the ballot box. But I acquit them of that charge —I do not think that that is the real reason.
I believe that the television and broadcasting people, like the media generally, have a blind belief in what is called the freedom of the press, and that ideal transcends any other consideration. It also colours the Opposition amendment today. To the media, the concept of the freedom of the press represents an absolute right to report or interview whomsoever they wish, regardless of the values that that person may hold and be known to hold. Because they allow that ideal to dominate their thoughts, they refuse to recognise the validity of any arguments that suggest that they should limit their reporting operations. Their defence is the argument that anything that prevents full media coverage is by definition a threat to democracy. As a former journalist, that is where I part company from them.
At the end of the day, a journalist, no more or less than any other citizen, enjoys his or her freedom to work because the Government of the day maintain the laws without which a free society cannot protect the rights of its people. If the media think that they can be equivocal about supporting parliamentary democracy and the rule of law, they deceive themselves, and probably their viewers and readers as well. The IRA has made no secret of its belief in the Armalite and the ballot box. It has placed itself outside the law with its campaign of murder, shootings, bombings and violence and its willingness to admit who the latest victim is. It uses every opportunity provided by an over-willing press to show off, whether it be the volley at the graveside, the funeral oration by the hon. Member for

Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), or the flowers left to mark the place where members of the active service unit lost their lives in Gibraltar. The IRA has used the media with a flare for public relations that must make professional PR men green with envy.

Mr. Marlow: The media would have us believe that their concern is to give us as much information as possible, but what they are really about is providing entertainment, and when they use the concept of freedom of speech in pursuit of their activities they are really concerned about improving their ratings. Sadly, when they are chasing an audience they have no concern whatever for the propaganda benefits to the IRA and the suffering so callously caused to the victims and their relations. Is that not the root of the problem? The media say one thing, but the reality is totally different.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: The paradox of that list of opportunities that the IRA have exploited is the same media's coverage of the remembrance day explosion at Enniskillen or the death of the young light infantrymen in their bus. The media will be there to show us pictures of the latest victims of terrorism, their funerals, the sobbing widow and the mourners and to report the words of the minister or priest at the end of the service. They see nothing incongruous in their open-mindedness and their unwillingness to make any difference between those who openly flout the law and those who have lost their lives trying to uphold it.

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman mentioned Enniskillen. Apart from the statements of Gordon Wilson and the sentiments that he expressed, which none of us will ever forget, surely the most effective thing at that time was the way in which good journalism took apart the chairman of Fermanagh council, the spokesman for Sinn Fein, laying bare its whole philosophy and approach. That was the most destructive element for Sinn Fein, but it could not have happened if that man had not been allowed to present his views on television and subject himself to good television journalism, which can achieve more than a thousand words spoken here.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is right, but I do not remember that interview, although the words of Marie Wilson will remain in many of our minds for a long time to come.
Those who run the media argue that they are impartial observers reporting events in Northern Ireland as they happen, but can a free press in a parliamentary democracy be impartial as between the forces of law and order defending that democracy and the terrorists who have rejected the parliamentary process in favour of the gun to win support for their cause? Despite the proposed restrictions, if the hon. Member for Belfast, West chose to take his place in the Chamber today, he could take part in this debate and his words would be broadcast throughout the country, but he has turned his back on this the Mother of Parliaments, and on this democracy because he wishes to pull it down. It is no use arguing that what he stands for and what our parliamentary democracy stands for are the same thing. If the media claim to be impartial in the way that they believe they can, are they not in reality giving licence to the terrorist and a spurious respectability to the dreadful and lawless means that the terrorist has chosen to achieve his ends?
That is why I welcome the limitation, mild though it is, that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has imposed on interviews and live coverage of the IRA, the UDA and the UVF. It comes not a moment too soon and provokes the following thought. Instead of railing against it, should not those responsible for the BBC and IBA be asking themselves why they did not voluntarily impose some restraint along the same lines? I questioned the chairman of the BBC, Marmaduke Hussey, in a letter about the recent programme "Spotlight" dealing with the killings in Gibraltar before the inquest was held there and asked why it had been shown only in Northern Ireland. He replied on 3 June 1988 as follows:
The BBC's motives in making the 'Spotlight' programme were straightforward. The aim was not to influence public opinion but to inform it.
He continued:
And far from being insensitive to the audience in Northern Ireland, the showing of the 'Spotlight' programme was in fact a response to the considerable interest shown in the Province in the Gibraltar events.
I was sufficiently interested in his reply to write to the controller of the BBC in Northern Ireland about the response to the killings in Gibraltar. On 21 June, 18 days after the chairman's letter, Dr. Colin Morris wrote:
We had 70 telephone calls before the programme protesting; the majority of which were hostile to the programme's intention. About 10 per cent. were in favour of the programme being shown. We had eight letters from viewers. Seven against the programme and one in its favour.
I have to conclude from those letters that Mr. Hussey was wrongly informed by whoever drafted his letter for him, but this underlines the BBC's blindness to anything but its judgment on these matters.

Mr. Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree that this saga goes way back—back even to the late 1960s? Does he agree also that the basis on which the letter was written probably has a great deal to do with the principles that were enunciated by Mr. Richard Francis, who had responsibility for current affairs before he left the BBC recently? Does my hon. Friend agree that the essential point that lies at the root of what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has done, and what is right, is that we must ensure that the basis on which these matters are dealt with now is not the same as the basis on which the BBC has been running these things for the past 20 years?

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: I agree with my hon. Friend.
I wrote also to Lord Thomson of Monifieth, chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority, about the programme "Death on the Rock" which inspired so much controversy about the killings in Gibraltar. I asked him why the programme had been broadcast before the inquest. In his reply on 25 May 1988, he wrote:
The issues as we see them relate to free speech and free enquiry which underpin individual liberty and the rule of law in a democracy. The right of broadcasters and the press to examine events of major public concern is well established and should be preserved.
He continued:
The Thames programme uncovered new evidence and potential witnesses who might otherwise have been unavailable to the inquest. This must surely be a contribution to the cause of justice and the rule of law.
We now know that "Death on the Rock", which cast doubt on the activities of the security forces and the SAS, raised questions about whether there was a "shoot to kill" policy and generally inflamed passions, was shot full of

inaccuracies, so much so that the IBA has set up an inquiry into how the programme was made and how those statements were put out.
I am glad that an inquiry has been set up. The letters from Mr. Hussey, the controller of the BBC in Northern Ireland and Lord Thomson highlight the blunders which the BBC and IBA have made just this year. After all the violence in Northern Ireland, which has lasted for 20 years, it is time that they considered the way in which they cover events in the Province, whether they are informing the democracy about the true problems of Northern Ireland and the causes of dissension between its people, or whether, as has been suggested, they focus too much on the acts of violence, which catch the headlines, but deep down have not tried hard to persuade or to educate our population about the difficulties through which Ulster has gone.
One reason for that, I suggest, is that their concentration on every incident of violence seems to exclude anything else. But there is one other factor. Until my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave directions to the BBC and the IBA, and despite the small support enjoyed by Sinn Fein, with probably even less enjoyed by the IRA, people such as the hon. Member for Belfast, West were given the same coverage as those who represent law-abiding parliamentary parties in Northern Ireland. That was a monstrous over-representation, and I welcome these directions, which should redress the imbalance.

Mr. Michael Foot: Like the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson), I speak on this subject not only as a Member of Parliament but as a journalist for a number of years. One aspect about which the House should be deeply concerned is how journalists are to be able to conduct their business, not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom, under the kind of edict which the Home Secretary issued a week or two ago.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) put the case in classic terms. Of course that is the right way for Opposition Members and other hon. Members to protect this country's liberties. My right hon. Friend's case was conclusive and those who examine it in the future will see how conclusive it was. The House should have been persuaded by it.
I will give some credit to the Home Secretary. Perhaps, some months ago, he would have been persuaded by my right hon. Friend's case. We all know the pressures which the Home Secretary must endure, both in the House and at Conservative party conferences. In some respects he stands up to them, and in others he does not. This question has come persistently from his right hon. Friends: why did he leave this decision for so long? I should like to pay the Home Secretary, and perhaps the Home Office, the compliment of thinking that they left this decision for so long because they knew that it was impossible to introduce such an edict without infringing the liberties of broadcasters and journalists.

Mr. Barry Porter: The right hon. Gentleman has asserted that it will be difficult, if not impossible, for journalists to ply their trade. If that is so, how do Radio Telefis Eireann, The Irish Times and The Cork Examiner carry out their functions under a more restrictive edict?

Mr. Foot: It is wonderful to see the whole Conservative party, without exception, Front and Back Benchers, taking shelter behind the laws of the Government of the Republic. I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's point. That is a diversion. It is extraordinary for anyone who has been a Member as long as I have to hear the whole Conservative party saying, "Please, we must follow the example of the Republic of Ireland. That is the way that we should approach our affairs."
I give credit to the Home Secretary. He was slow in reaching this decision, for good reasons. He wanted to be careful. He said, "I must be careful that there are no infringements." If that was the right hon. Gentleman's reason—it is the most creditable reason why he should have acted with such restraint over such a period—surely when he decided to go ahead he should have carefully considered the way in which he introduced the measure. He might even have looked at what is done in the Irish Republic. That Parliament introduced a law which changed the position. The Home Secretary's proposals are so far-reaching in interfering with the rights of free speech and free publication that he should have considered them more carefully. His advisers should have said, "This is such an important matter that we must go to the House of Commons with a change in the law."
The Home Secretary has taken a different course. In his statement a fortnight or so ago, he said that he would introduce some changes in the law to deal with IRA funds. That would be a very good measure. However, if that matter has to be dealt with by a change in the law of the land, I should have thought that these restrictions should have been dealt with in the same way. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook proved, the border territory is large, amorphous and indeterminate under the general edict from the Home Office, which we have instead of a change in the law. Until the matter is taken to the courts, nobody will know how the Home Secretary's edict is to operate.
The motion does not add anything to the power and majesty of the law and does not affect the law of the land. If hon. Members representing Northern Irish constituencies have any doubts about that, they should consult the former hon. Member for South Down. His views on such matters could not be challenged. As he said, one cannot and should not attempt to change the law by ministerial edict. If one tries, one will find that it does not work and that will happen in this case. Either the journalists will be so intimidated by the Home Secretary's edit that they will refrain from carrying out their proper responsibility to report what is happening or the matter will go to the courts and the courts will have to decide what it is permissible to report in Northern Ireland under these restrictions—which have been rushed in.
The matter will have to be settled in the courts. The Home Secretary should have considered introducing a law in which the issues were properly considered. If he had done that, he would have followed—at least in that respect—the example of the Government of the Irish Republic.

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman has spoken for about 10 minutes and in every sentence he has given the impression that he believes that the notices affect reporting. They do not.

Mr. Foot: They affect the way in which events in Northern Ireland are put across to the general public. That

is reporting. If that is not considered to be reporting, the Home Secretary is basing his case on the most ridiculous quibble that I have heard—even from this Government. Broadcasting is part of the reporting process and that is why the Government—or at least the Prime Minister—believe that they must interfere with the way in which it is done.
The Home Secretary should have given the House the chance to examine the proposal in detail. We should, of course, have opposed it, because it restricts freedom. However, at least the borders would have been defined in a way that the courts could interpret.

Mr. Hurd: indicated dissent.

Mr. Foot: It is no good the Home Secretary shaking his head. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook has explained, there is already complete confusion in the BBC and IBA, as well as elsewhere, about what can and cannot be reported. If they ask how to resolve the confusion, the absurd answer is that they must apply to the Government.

Mr. Cash: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to his desire to see a change in the law. He surely accepts that, within the terms of the BBC's charter and the Broadcasting Act 1981 under which the directions are given, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is acting within the law. There is no question about that. I do not understand what the right hon. Gentleman is talking about.

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member is unable to understand already, no surgical operation on my part will assist in making him understand in future.
Speeches from Labour and Conservative Members—and the reticence of the Home Secretary—have underlined the fact that they understand that the directions are a major departure from previous practice, whatever right to introduce them the Home Secretary may have. To introduce such measures by edict is a shocking way to proceed.

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Anthony Beaumont-Dark: rose

Mr. Foot: I shall not give way.
The Home Secretary should have gone about the matter differently. I prophesy that the Government will have to introduce a law that deals with the matter because of the appalling confusion that has been created. Proper reporting of events in Northern Ireland has been gravely injured by what the Government have done. As the confusion continues in the coming months, the Home Secretary will have to consider carefully why it has arisen.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Foot: No. I have already given way twice.
The Home Secretary should have realised that the proper way of dealing with the problem was through the House. The Home Secretary should have used the House of Commons to deal with this major change in the way in which events in this country can be reported. Other speeches, in particular that of the hon. Member for Newbury, show how dangerous the Home Secretary's action is.

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Gentleman promised that he would answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash). That was about 10 minutes ago. We are still waiting. Can you do anything to help us, Mr. Deputy Speaker?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I call Mr. Michael Foot.

Mr. Foot: It is strange that hon. Members who do not understand free speech in the House should pretend to understand it elsewhere.
The Government have introduced grave confusion into the way in which matters are reported. Far from making a contribution to solving the problem, the Home Secretary has created confusion. Those who believe in the right to free speech and in the power of free debate to solve problems will consider the measure an insult to the people of the United Kingdom, as well as the people of Northern Ireland, because it means that they cannot judge for themselves about the programmes that they see. If argument continues and the possibility of putting a case remains, we have the strongest benefit and safeguard for the country.
The Home Secretary is a little more reticent than some of his colleagues in these affairs. The right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), among others, sought to intimidate broadcasters by one means or another. It is to the credit of the BBC and others that they generally stood up to that intimidation, and I hope that they will stand up to this measure too.
We all know how deep and difficult the problems of Northern Ireland are. The solution to those problems will come only as a reward for the process of debate and not as a reward for enforced diktats from the Home Office, which may not believe in its own edicts.

Several Hon. Members: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: A number of hon. Members wish to speak on the matter and some will be disappointed if we do not have short speeches. I appeal to hon. Members for brief speeches.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I have listened carefully to the arguments weighed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in his opening address to the House. It was extraordinary that his compelling arguments for issuing the directives to the IBA and to the governors of the BBC were not weighed against the importance of free speech to our society. We in the House must hold dear our ability to express freely our views about matters that concern every one of our citizens. Without that ability, we do not have democracy. Bentham uttered the adage that, without publicity, no good can endure, and, with publicity, no evil can survive. Publicity is an essential ingredient in our ability to judge these important matters.
The Government's measure is inconsistent even with the arguments that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advanced. Sinn Fein is a lawful and legitimate party, no matter what one may think of it. How can we restrict the access to free speech that a lawful and legitimate party has in the United Kingdom? I could understand it if the Government were saying that Sinn

Fein was an unlawful, prohibited terrorist organisation, but they do not say that. They continue to allow Sinn Fein to present its views to the electorate during elections. They go so far as to say that, in the narrow window of the electoral process, supporters of Sinn Fein may be interviewed. If they speak in the House, their remarks may be reported direct on the air waves. If we regard this place as a crucible for the ideas of a free, open, confident democracy, how can we designate the remarks of a lawful political party and say that a spokesman for that party may not broadcast directly? That is my right hon. Friend's instruction to the directors of the BBC and the IBA. There is an enormous flaw in the argument.
Let us weigh the importance of free speech in a democracy. If evil cannot endure where there is publicity, the instruction will not be denying freedom to Sinn Fein as much as it denies freedom to our fellow citizens on the mainland of Britain. Surely in a democracy the presentation of arguments is the very first basis on which we judge the integrity or intentions of those who spout their beliefs.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary knows that I am a fervent Unionist. I believe passionately in the Union. I greatly regret the fact that many of the actions of the Government whom I support have contributed to undermining the integrity of that Union. I say that positively for one reason. I appeal to my right hon. and hon. Friends and to the Opposition that we do not put up political candidates to enjoin fellow members of the United Kingdom into the political comity that we all enjoy when arguing for the interests of our electorate. Education, welfare, health and infrastructure are all essential ingredients of the political dialogue for those who live in England or Scotland. In Northern Ireland, the one issue is the continuance of the Union. Confidence should enable us to assert that we can stand and make our case.
In weighing great issues, free speech is vital to us. I agreed with the observation of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about the assertion by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on Sunday that the reference point should be the Home Office. That smacks of all the Ministers of the Interior of other societies and other generations which have felt that the advice of such Ministers on such matters was essential for the management of their community. We are a confident and strong democracy and we can face and outface evil with argument. We can win that way; not with measures such as this.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You gave the impression that the debate was time barred. As I understand it, the voice of the House must be heard until any hour. You gave the impression that any hon. Member who spoke for more than two minutes would be out of order. Is that the rule of the House, or is it your interpretation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman is putting an interpretation on my remarks. I do not think that hon. Members should have to stay here until the small hours of the morning to deliver speeches that they have been nursing all evening. I think that it would be for the convenience of the House and the appreciation of other hon. Members if speeches could be made at a reasonable hour.

Mr. Peter Archer: Whatever the rules of order may say, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall endeavour to respond to your injunction.
The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) merits the admiration of the House because he has gone to the heart of the matter. I hope that he will forgive me if I defer taking up his argument until a little later in my speech.
I fear that the Government have once again made themselves ridiculous. I find no pleasure in recording that fact, partly because I respect the Home Secretary and I suspect that he may be defending a measure which is not his own proposal. Secondly, I do not believe that any hon. Member would like to see the paramilitaries succeed in their objectives or to hear of anything that would encourage support for them. Yet that is the effect of what the Government are doing. They have allowed themselves to be manoeuvred into what the paramilitaries and their supporters can represent as repression. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, the directive is bound to be reported in America and wherever the paramilitaries go for financial and other support, and the terrorists will be portrayed as freedom fighters resisting censorship and repression. The Government have left themselves with the worst of all worlds. They have incurred the opprobrium for which the paramilitaries have been hoping and praying and they have done so without achieving anything practical.
I am still not quite clear what the Home Secretary was trying to say. At first, he seemed to be saying that we needed to do something and that we were now doing something effective. Then he seemed to say that we did not have to worry because the measure would make no difference anyway. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, we have all witnessed the absurdity of an interview being carried up to the point at which it cannot lawfully be continued, and then a shot of the interviewee is accompanied by the announcer saying "This is what he or she is saying."

Mr. Barry Porter: Is not the problem that the Government have at last realised that it is proper to use a basically illiberal method to fight someone who is trying to destroy liberal democracy? Because they do not like to use that illiberal method they try to liberalise it. In doing so, I fear they have got the worst of both worlds.

Mr. Archer: I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman and I start from the same point, but I am sure that we have reached the same conclusion: that the Government have been ineffectual in what they are trying to do, so all the fuss is pointless.
I am not even sure that the Government have not failed to find the correct form of words to achieve what they seek to achieve. They have placed an embargo on the supporters of Sinn Fein. Suppose that someone says, "I do not support Sinn Fein. I totally disagree with Sinn Fein because it is too moderate and compassionate." That would not come within the terms of the embargo.
The measure is a classic example of an unimaginative and leaden-footed Government being manoeuvred into looking silly. It is what I call the Austerlitz strategy. At Austerlitz, Napoleon was confronted with superior numbers. He asked himself, "What would I most like my opponents to do if they were totally to take leave of their

senses?" Having answered that question, he set about getting the enemy to do it. That is what the paramilitaries have achieved. I do not propose to delay the House further with that theme.
I intervene to restate the simple case for toleration. That thesis is not that anyone is entitled to put a point of view, but that the public are entitled to hear any point of view which anyone seeks to propound and to hear it from its own advocates. The public are entitled to hear a view from those who advocate it and make up their own minds on the validity of that view.

Mr. Marlow: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has just said that he feels that anybody is entitled to propagate his point of view and that the public are entitled to hear it. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that if somebody wants to propagate racial hatred, racial disharmony or racialism, he should be entitled to propagate that view? Does he feel that it is right to propagate the point of view of terrorism, murder, mayhem, mutilation and killing?

Mr. Archer: As the hon. Gentleman asks, I shall make my position clear. I have always thought that people are entitled to express views like that. If they do so in such a way as to undo the work of patient reconciliation in a community, that is a different matter. But I would not stop even the hon. Gentleman propounding his views. I want the public to judge their validity. I am not afraid of them; I would like them to be exposed to the light of day.
Of course, for security reasons, or for some of the other reasons given by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook, the Government may have to prevent some information from being broadcast. That is not in question today. No one has suggested that security is a consideration in this embargo. The only justification that could be advanced is that the public may hear opinions which are unacceptable to the Government, to the public and to this House, and that those opinions are distasteful, wicked and offensive. I can well understand that. But that is the very test of a tolerant society. The test of tolerance does not come when we contemplate opinions that we share or when we hear points of view with which we agree. George Bernard Shaw pointed out that tolerance and freedom have no meaning except in relation to opinions that we consider damnable, pernicious and disgusting. We do not tolerate the opinions of our friends and of those who agree with us. Toleration arises only when we hear an opinion that we consider so wicked that we are tempted to say that the public should not be permitted to hear it. If we do not tolerate opinions such as that, the paramilitaries have achieved their objective of destroying free society.
I can understand Conservative Members saying that there must be a line somewhere—that some opinions are too deplorable to tolerate. That was the argument used by the Spanish Inquisition, by the Gestapo and by the KGB; it has been the argument used by repressors and torturers throughout the ages. It is based on a fundamental fallacy. Surely the more obviously wrong an opinion is, the more certainly truth will triumph in open debate.
I am aware of the distinctions which the Home Secretary mentioned between what is going on in South Africa and what is happening here. There is nothing to be gained from overstating the case. But I am sure that people in South Africa will say that they will not be lectured by the British, because we are doing the same as they are. It


would be a great tragedy if, in the international community, the voices of British people speaking out for human rights met that reaction.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I wonder what General Jaruzelski will say to the Prime Minister in Poland if the same point is raised with her.

Mr. Archer: Indeed. We may be able to draw distinctions between our country and others and say that they have not got it right, but this will mute the voice of those of us who are trying to speak out for human rights abroad.
This country has a long tradition of toleration for all opinions, right and wrong, good and wicked, because we believe that opinions should compete in a free market and that in the testing environment of daylight truth will flourish and falsehood will be exposed for what it is. That tradition takes longer to build than to destroy—but no gun can destroy it, no terrorist can destroy it: only the Government can destroy it. That is what this debate is about.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: I readily confess that I am worried about this motion and about the notice that the Home Secretary has issued to the chairmen of the BBC and IBA, so I welcome this opportunity to debate the subject again and to reconsider some of the points raised on 19 October.
At that time, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) declared the Labour party's unequivocal opposition to terrorism. I am prepared to accept that as a sincere statement on behalf of Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. I noted, however, that on the same day as his declaration the Labour-controlled council in Haringey lent its buildings to an exhibition of photography extolling the virtues of the IRA. So Opposition Members must know that, although I am prepared to accept their assurances, it seems that some of their camp followers do not put that declaration into practice.
The case for the action by the Secretary of State is stronger than has been acknowledged by Opposition Members. It is absolutely right in a free and democratic society that the Home Secretary should have at his disposal the powers that are given to him by clause 13(4) of the licence and agreement of the BBC and section 29(3) of the Broadcasting Act 1981. After all, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) used those powers when he was Paymaster General. It is right that they should exist.
One can argue that this action has shown the high priority that the Government give to combating terrorism, and that such a demonstration is right. We can go further and illustrate the weakness of Opposition Members' arguments by examining the Irish experience with section 31 of their Broadcasting Act. If, as I believe they do, the Government of the Irish Republic find that their section 31 is an effective way of minimising the growth of extremism, it is legitimate for us to examine their experience to see what we can learn from it on an experimental basis.

Mr. Mallon: This is the second time that the same point has been made in the debate. For 51 weeks of the year I am told in this Chamber that the Republic of Ireland is a haven for terrorism, that it is full of bombs and that it is

the place from which the IRA operates, so I find it hard to understand why, for the convenience of this debate, the Irish Government's section 31 has helped cause all these problems to evaporate. Conservative Members cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Hunter: That is not an intervention: it is a speech. It is entirely irrelevant to the point that I am making. A serious attempt has been made in the Republic of Ireland with section 31, and it is worth seeing whether we can learn from it.
Another point that supports the Home Secretary's actions is the reaction from the people against whom the measure is directed. It is clear that they do not like it. From that we may reasonably argue that the measure will be effective and will disrupt those opponents' activities.
Again, we often use the line about terrorism thriving on publicity, calling it the lifeblood or oxygen of terrorism. This provision will limit the access of the opponents of democracy and freedom to the media, and it is worth giving it a try.
On the other hand, Opposition Members may now discover that our attitudes have something in common. I am profoundly worried by two aspects of this policy.
Ultimately, terrorism can be defeated only by the people's rejection of it. It must be seen to be an option that is not worth following. For that to happen, we want to incorporate the potential supporters of terrorist causes into the democratic process. We want to bring them into the full play and process of the democratic system. This measure nips all that in the bud. This is very worrying.
The second thing that worries me is the maxim that publicity is the lifeblood of terrorism. In some circumstances it is, but in others it is not. It is demonstrably provable that television coverage of acts of terrorism encourages other acts of terrorism. Pictures of the hijacking of an airliner or of stone-throwing by rioters in the streets encourage comparable actions. However, I do not think that the intellectual political argument or interview encourages terrorism.
My hon. Friend and near neighbour the hon. Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) complained on. 19 October, when this matter was discussed, that a television company had suggested giving Gerry Adams two hours of viewing time. That would be incredibly boring, but I can think of nothing better than Gerry Adams being on television and those who try to defend violence being thus exposed. As I say, I fear that we may not be following the right course.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam: In view of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I assume that he will join us in the Lobby. His only argument against this action is his worry about section 31 in the Republic of Ireland. If he talks to media people in the Republic, he will discover that they find the provision difficult to operate and that they have serious doubts about its viability.

Mr. Hunter: That is one point of view, but there is evidence to suggest that it is not the exclusive point of view. However, I note what the hon. Lady has said.
There is another dimension to my anxiety about the debate. Too often, in the aftermath of a horrific terrorist outrage, we express our genuine concern and talk about developing a strategy to deal with terrorism. However, the Government, who I greatly support in other respects, are


open to the charge that if they had devoted as much energy to fighting terrorism as they did to defeating Galtieri and Scargill, we would not now be in this position.
At a speech to the police college at Bramshill in 1985 the Home Secretary said that "terrorism knows no frontiers". He spoke about the international dimension of terrorism. He said that if it is to be dealt with effectively there must be a greater degree of international co-operation. He would have us believe that the appearance of Gerry Adams on our television screens is against national interests. If he believes that terrorism knows no frontiers, is it not just as much against national interests that African National Congress executive member Ronnie Kasrils walks the streets of London recruiting terrorists, at least one of whom has come from the ranks of extreme Irish republicans? In his flat in Tufnell Park, Timothy Jenkins is using the expertise that he has obtained from the IRA partially to assemble bombs which are then sent to Lusaka and on to South Africa to maim and kill innocent people. From her flat in Golders Green, Ronnie Kasrils's wife Eleanor orchestrates terrorist activity in South Africa. If terrorism knows no frontiers, surely we must address ourselves to London being used in that way.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: I agree more with what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said in the earlier part of his speech than with what he said at the end of it. If he has evidence to support what he said, no doubt he will forward it to the proper quarters.
When he announced the measures that we are considering, the Home Secretary had the grace to say that they were extremely serious matters. It has taken 19 years of the Northern Ireland troubles to bring about this curtailment of freedom of expression. Some people have argued that it should have happened before, but other Home Secretaries and other Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland have not thought it appropriate.
Freedom of expression is a fundamental right guaranteed by the European convention on human rights, and the House guards it with special vigilance. When it is abridged, Parliament wants to know the reasons why. Of course, it is not an absolute right and may be qualified by circumstances—including, for example, a perceived threat to national security which would entitle a Government to curtail it. The European convention acknowledges those circumstances. I do not quarrel with or question the Home Secretary's decision on legal grounds. I and my colleagues look for more compelling political justification than the Home Secretary has deployed in this debate or when he announced these measures.
Like others who have had experience of Northern Ireland, the Home Secretary will no doubt suffer from a sense of frustration that there is so little progress there towards normality. Like others before him, he no doubt feels the need not only constantly to review policy but from time to time to announce a new initiative. Unfortunately, these initiatives too often merely exacerbate the tensions and violence and fail to restore security and constitutional normality.
In announcing this new initiative, the Home Secretary rested his case for banning television appearances by

terrorists and their supporters on two propositions. As the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has said, both those propositions need careful consideration. First, the Home Secretary claims that such appearances draw support for the terrorists from the public at large since the terrorists can address the public more directly through television than they can through the newspapers. Secondly, he says that these appearances cause grave offence, most grave in Northern Ireland.
There seems to be a certain inconsistency between the Home Secretary's two arguments. He is right to recognise that such broadcasts on television cause grave offence. It takes a strong stomach to observe people in human guise advancing their vile sophistries to justify their evil inhumanity. If the Home Secretary's gorge rises at the sight of a terrorist on television, I do not see why he should assume that the British public react any differently. If the people of Northern Ireland are even more angered by these appearances, terrorists will draw little sustenance from their direct 'access to the public. There is no evidence that 19 years of exposure on television has added a featherweight of support to the terrorist cause.
It should be remembered that, in the politics of Northern Ireland, myth is a very potent force. Myth is most powerfully debunked by seeing and hearing the evil banalities of the supporters of terrorism. The Home Secretary's judgment underrates the perceptiveness of the viewers and their ability to spot a moral cretin when they see one. Television powerfully exposes the character and motives of those upon whom it focuses.
The broadcasting authorities have had a difficult task in deciding, sometimes on the spur of the moment, what to transmit. On the whole, they have discharged their task with caution and responsibility. In this context, I agree with the hon. Member for Basingstoke: if Mr. Gerry Adams were to be subjected to even half an hour of questioning by, say, Mr. Brian Walden or Sir Robin Day, I doubt whether he would have many admirers left. These terrorists are not supermen. They are like rats in the sewers, out of the daylight, which would only expose their vulnerability.
The Home Secretary is right to say that self-justifying appearances give widespread offence, but he is wrong if he believes that such appearances succeed in their objectives. I doubt whether the Home Secretary really believes that, by turning off the sound when the terrorists speak, he will diminish the frightfulness of what is happening in Northern Ireland. However, sometimes it seems that it is Government policy to emphasise the ordinariness of Northern Ireland, in the hope that the image will become the reality. That will not do. The troubles in Northern Ireland are not nice. For 20 years, our fellow citizens there have borne the brunt of these horrors. Their relatives have had their joints smashed, their skins burnt and their brains blown out. These deeds are offensive and their perpetrators are offensive, but the British public are neither so squeamish nor so inured to these horrors that they require censorship to protect them from the sight and sound of terrorism.
One of the stranger assertions that the Home Secretary made, in the debate tonight and when he made his announcement, was that by issuing his direction to broadcasters he had simplified their job and that by the terms of the direction he had removed broadcasters' discretion to judge whether to transmit. The reality is that his hurriedly announced measure has given rise to a series


of subsequent attempts by the Home Office to give authoritive interpretation to the terms of his direction. It remains unclear what the legal validity of the clarifications is. I would submit that there is none. However, it is clear beyond doubt that the clarifications have not removed the doubts and difficulties of the broadcasters.
The question whether an individual represents a terrorist organisation and whether his words support such an organisation are not easily decided. Apparently, it is the conjunction of the words and image of the person that is banned. We can see the terrorist, his words can be repeated by someone else—either a reporter or an actor—unless the terrorist is standing for Parliament. The anomalies of the direction and its subsequent interpretation are legion. We shall be able to hear speeches from Sinn Fein candidates during an election, but not, apparently, their comments upon its result. It may be that their very presence will lead to the censoring of all live post-election comment.
One of the most sinister consequences of the direction has been the Home Office statement that there is no exemption from the terms of the notice for historical documentaries or for recordings of persons who are now dead. Thus, for example, an excellent historical programme commissioned by Mr. Jeremy Isaacs for Channel 4, which I understand it was intended to show again, would require excision of all appearances by the late Eamon de Valera, who for television purposes in Britain will become a non-person.
The international consequences of this ill-thought-out direction are beginning to emerge only now. How will the Home Secretary respond to representations from foreign Governments calling on Her Majesty's Government to prevent the World Service and other media from transmitting words by those whom those Governments deem to be terrorists? The moral position of the Government has been eroded by this action. Perhaps the Home Secretary will tell us how he proposes to prevent members of Sinn Fein from broadcasting direct to this country by satellite. Indeed, the effectiveness of this measure is bound to be called into question as technology develops.
This country has not lost the freedoms that the House cherishes by subversion, revolution or war. If we lose our freedoms, it will be by carelessness. In the Government's dealings with the broadcasting authorities, what looks like a pattern of carelessness is emerging. The Home Secretary should withdraw his direction, not to clarify its obscurities but because it is an unnecessary and repugnant curb on our freedom.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: While I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for calling me to take part in the debate, I freely confess it is a debate to which I would rather not be contributing. I say that not because I think that the standard of the debate has been low. On the contrary, the debate has stirred up differences and given rise to strong feelings on both sides of the House. Together with my hon. Friends the Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter), I feel like one of those barnacled whales in a hole in the ice, with the ice closing in and with my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench not about to bring in an ice breaker to get me free.
When this proposal was first announced, and Conservative Members received little warning, my natural reaction was that it was a misguided measure which was the result of a desperate need to be seen to be doing something rather than a proposal that had been through the Whitehall machinery to have every "i" dotted and every "t" crossed. When I glance through the press cuttings of the follow-ups to the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and learn of the growing number of muddles and disputes that have grown from the original statement, I can only say to myself that I was right to be sceptical in the first place.
Right hon. and hon. Members on both the Government and Opposition Front Benches have a tendency to exaggerate. I do not think that this measure is either as good as my right hon. and hon. Friends have said, or as bad in its damage to the individual liberties of our citizens as right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite suggest. My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) seemed to see it as part of the vendetta against the BBC—the Government's vengeance for being let down by the BBC. Clearly, it is nothing of the sort if one examines it in detail.
I am also aware that this is a popular measure, and that if I walked down the Broadway in Bexleyheath tonight 80 per cent. of my constituents would tell me that it is a marvellous idea, being tough on terrorists. However, hon. Members, particularly Conservative Members, have a duty to probe, to question, almost to have a committee debate to peer behind the curtain to examine what the Government have brought before the House of Commons this evening.
Yes, it is good in parts. I came into the House in 1974 and that year David O'Connell, the so-called chief of staff of the IRA, appeared on BBC television. I remember writing angry letters to the chairman of the BBC because I think that it is wrong for members of the IRA to appear on television. I would also think it wrong if a bank robber appeared on television or if a rapist appeared on television after a particularly sordid rape. There must be some discretion. A line should be drawn.
I welcome the measure because it is even-handed, and it would be deplorable if that were not so. I am a strong supporter of the Anglo-Irish Agreement, so there is a superficial attraction in Britain coming into line with the Irish Republic. But when I probed that further, I got the impression that the Irish Republic did not ask for that particular proposal. The phrase in the papers was that they did not actually object to what had emerged from the Home Office.
The comparisons between North and South are a little false. I am told that Sinn Fein represents about 1·9 per cent. of the total vote in the South, while in the North it represents some 30 per cent. of the nationalist vote. An editorial in The Times on 20 October, talking about southern Ireland, stated:
There are frequent and well-publicised rows about borderline cases. It remains unpopular with journalists It probably contributed to the fall of the Fine Gael-Labour coalition which amended the Act in 1976.
I suggest that by any stretch of the imagination it has not been plain sailing in the South. Frankly, with due respect to Dublin, it is not a world centre of communications, as we have the privilege of being here in London.
I am only too well aware that broadcasting the views of Sinn Fein spokesmen gives enormous offence to my


constituents. For the relations of those who have been killed or injured in Northern Ireland, of course there is a feeling of outrage. But we must ask ourselves this evening whether it is our duty as Members of Parliament to shield our constituents from that sense of outrage.
I bet that in the United States people were outraged by the broadcasts about Vietnam. They would rather have not seen what was happening in Vietnam. But who in the House could say how wrong it was that the citizens of the United States were outraged by what they saw in Vietnam? People had to face the facts, and certain political consequences flowed from that.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: My hon. Friend suggests that the measure which my right hon. Friend has brought to the House will restrict the reporting of events. There is no comparison between the measure brought forward by my right hon. Friend and the remarks that my hon. Friend is making about the Vietnam war.

Mr. Townsend: I was saying simply that the impact of the film coverage from Vietnam played a major part in the public discussion about the future of that war. If one considers Sinn Fein—and I totally deplore all that it stands for—one has to recognise that it is a force in the North. It has 59 locally elected councillors, it has a Member of Parliament and it has support from the public in Northern Ireland that we all wish it did not have. That is the reality. Had the Government of the day brought forward such a measure before Sinn Fein had gained that stronghold in Northern Ireland in electoral terms, it is possible that the position would be very different, but to attempt to ban the broadcasting of Sinn Fein now, when it is running a local council in Northern Ireland, seems extraordinarily confused and misguided.
I put it to my hon. Friends who totally disagree with what I am saying that, unlike the IRA, members of Sinn Fein have names and faces. They are prepared to stand up in public places and argue their cause, just like every hon. Member. They are not crouching in the studio in the dark with blankets over their heads. They are standing for election in our country. Therefore, I draw a distinction between a member of a political organisation which I totally deplore and a terrorist organisation such as the IRA, while of course understanding the links that exist between the two.

Mr. Harold McCusker: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that members of Sinn Fein are subject to the IRA and that Sinn Fein is an extension of the IRA? In the words of a former hon. Member representing West Belfast, they are daylight politicians. Does he not accept that Sinn Fein is an extension of a terrorist movement and as a consequence its members should be treated as terrorists?

Mr. Townsend: The hon. Gentleman got up before I had sat down. I said that there were very clear links between the two, and I fully understand what he says.
If the Government were looking for firmer ground to stand on, of course the proscription of the organisation was a possibility. I have to say that if I was consulted as to whether that was a good idea, I think I would say that it was not. I know that this is very unpalatable to some of my hon. Friends, but in certain circumstances Sinn Fein can

act as a safety valve and provides an option which s marginally different from direct support of terrorism; those who have far greater experience of Northern Ireland tell me that is so.
I raised with the Home Secretary the question of elections. I find the Government's position naive in the extreme. I was adopted as the Conservative candidate for Bexleyheath a good year before the election. It is common for a parliamentary candidate to be adopted several years before an election. That candidate or Member of Parliament works flat out to gain publicity, to get on local radio or television and improve his position in his constituency. For the Government to say solemnly that there is only the official three-week election period flies in the face of the evidence that is well known on both sides of the House.
Whatever the Government may gain in Belfast—I am uncertain about that gain—they will lose in Boston. They must face that fact. Like many other hon. Members, I talk to American students from time to time and the question of the IRA comes up. I say, "Look, members of the IRA have no grounds for taking the path of terrorism. They live in a democracy, they take part in elections and Sinn Fein is treated the same as any other political party." I cannot say that now.
I know that some of my hon. Friends think that it is marvellous that we are discriminating in that way. However, I hope that they will recognise that we are cold-bloodedly discriminating against a political party in part of our kingdom. What is to stop another Government being outraged by a speech from a spokesman for the National Front or some of my hon. Friends being outraged by some Left-wing organisation demanding the sacking of the monarchy, the removal of all the judges and the dismissal of all the admirals, generals or air marshals and feeling that the moment had come to ban that extreme group from taking part in a broadcast?
The Government had to draw a line if they were to bring forward a measure of this nature. They have drawn a wobbly line between broadcasters and journalists. In the real world, a broadcaster is frequently a journalist. I am open to correction if I am wrong but, as I understand it, a member of Sinn Fein can write an article in The Daily Telegraph in London tomorrow, he can have a letter in the column of The Times and can be interviewed in The Independent; yet he will not be able to be cross-examined on his local radio station in Ulster about what has been written and no one will be able to ask him about his views or what he is trying to achieve. I cannot go back to Bexleyheath tonight and say that that is a sensible proposal, the sort of proposal I expect from a Conservative Government.
There has already been reference to the precedent that we have created. Some of my hon. Friends may not mind the fact that we are being quoted in South Africa as the way forward. Suppose that, in six months, there is a particularly nasty episode in Transylvania, where the Romanian authorities are bulldozing villages of a thousand years' standing and, when the world's press tries to find out what is happening, the Romanian authorities quote what the Conservative Government have been doing in Northern Ireland. What happens then? What happens if there is further trouble in Latvia, Estonia or Lithuania, and once again we are told, "We are following the example of the United Kingdom"?
The way to proceed is to bring public pressure to bear on the broadcasting authorities. I do not think it is true that the BBC or the IBA instantly opens the studio door to any member of Sinn Fein who comes along. On the contrary, they understand that Sinn Fein is in favour of violence and they try to exercise their discretion. We are all entitled to say that they get it wrong, but the man in Whitehall also gets it wrong from time to time. The way to proceed is to try to influence the authorities—the Government appoint half the officials who control the authorities—rather than in this way.
I have reached the conclusion that this is a measure of censorship. It is an illiberal act from a Home Secretary who, when Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, completely opposed it. I have been an hon. Member since 1974 and when the topic of banning Sinn Fein from television has arisen, as it has regularly, I have been told by Ministers of both parties that it would not work and was not practical. I fear that the Government, in their haste, have come forward with a measure that will damage the Conservative party and our country. Therefore, I shall not be supporting them tonight.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: In this part of the 20th century it is inevitable that any discussion about press censorship will contain many tensions. Circumstances have changed with the development of the electronic media, and tension is an inevitable part of life. That tension should, and must, be creative. It must be to the advantage of those in the media, and to the advantage of those of us who are involved in making laws and politics. For that reason, this is an important debate. That creative tension is not releasing itself into decisions, but paranoias are developing, which is dangerous, not only for these directions, but for the relationship between the Government, the people and the media that serve them.
This measure would not have been introduced but for the notion within the Government that somehow they must be protected from freedom of speech. We have seen that notion with Zircon, "Spycatcher" and on a number of other occasions, but we are now seeing it under a more self-righteous guise—a guise that is creating an umbrella that it does not merit. In many ways, the Government are unfairly taking this opportunity to do a Wapping on the press.

Mr. Cash: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that in southern Ireland there are equivalent provisions under section 1 of the Broadcasting Authority Act 1960? How can he square the position that he is adopting in attacking the Government for restraining people from making speeches with saying that it is acceptable in southern Ireland?

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman makes an entirely wrong assumption. I have always opposed section 31 of the Broadcasting Authority Act, for the same reasons as I oppose this measure. I have done so publicly since it was introduced, and will continue to do so as long as it exists in the Republic of Ireland. I want it to be removed as quickly as I want this measure to be removed.
The debate is important because a free and vibrant press is essential to the life that we lead. It is essential in a peaceful, stable country such as this. It is essential in a country that has not been torn apart or invaded for

centuries, and the stability and peace inherent within which is the envy of other nations. How much more important is a free press to the north of Ireland, which is torn apart by strife, where a political process is not operating and where everyone is living against a background of emergency legislation, a high security operation, substantial police powers and a substantial security service involvement, as we saw during the summer in various incidents, not least during those that took place in Gibraltar?
Against that backdrop, it is essential to have the protection of a free press to ensure the rights of the individual when, in effect, the Government are taking away the rights of the individual. We must have the protection of a free press when, in effect, the Government are lowering the legal and political standards that apply to the north of Ireland. For that reason, it is doubly important for us to have a free press. The Government are taking these measures in the misguided notion that somehow or other one can take the integrity of the law and the highest practices and diminish them to defeat terrorism. The law was never created to defeat terrorism, and that will certainly not be achieved by bending the law. It will simply add to the nature of the problem.
The motion gives us some idea of how the Government view the issue. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath (Mr. Townsend) referred to the United States of America. In 1941, as it was about to enter a world war and face enormous world pressure, Franklin Roosevelt said:
In the future days which we seek to make secure we look forward to a world founded on four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech—and expression—everywhere in the world.
The others were freedom to worship, freedom from want and freedom from fear. He made those remarks in the face of a world war.
This Government, after so many years of experience, are making the most fundamental mistake that they have made for some considerable time. I read the Secretary of State's speech when he presented the measure to the House on 19 October. I looked closely, but I did not see one reason for introducing it, except when he said:
Such appearances have caused widespread offence to viewers and listeners throughout the United Kingdom, particularly just after a terrorist outrage."—[Official Report, 19 October 1988; Vol. 138, c. 885.]
I accept that. Any human being witnessing the bottomless pit of suffering in Northern Ireland would sympathise with that and understand it. We especially understand the feelings of the bereaved when they look at a television screen and see an apologist for those who carried out the murder speaking in the most sophisticated terms. It is an admirable sentiment, and one with which I have no doubt everyone would sympathise, but it is not a basis on which to make law and from which to take political decisions. It is a mixture of three things. First, it is a gesture towards people in this country who find it aesthetically unacceptable to look at people on television whom they quite simply do not like. That is one of the luxuries of living in a stable society. The measure is a gesture to that.
Secondly, in many ways it is a sop—and a rather offensive sop—to people in the north of Ireland who have rightly complained about the killing of their constituents and the way in which the murder campaign has continued. It is almost an insulting sop to them. Thirdly. it is a


smokescreen for the Government, who are trying to give the impression that they are doing something. It is, in effect, confusing activity with action.
The measure will not achieve what the Government want. Indeed, it will be dangerously counter-productive. There is only one way in which it can be judged, only one criterion on which we can base our judgment: will it affect the standing, support and political effectiveness of the IRA, Sinn Fein and other organisations? That is the only question. Will the measure help to create peace? Will it help to end the violence? I suggest that it will not.
At a time when the IRA, despite what it would call its murder publicity stunts during the summer, is at a very low political ebb, the Government have given it a straight issue that will help it to garner votes in the European and district council elections. It will help the IRA in its propaganda in the United States. The IRA will turn it into propaganda in Boston, Chicago and New York. It will turn it into dollars. It will translate it into news in Northern Ireland, because it will exploit the confused mess that the Secretary of State has created.
How will it do that? I have here a copy of yesterday's edition of a newspaper from this side of the Channel. That is what the Provisional IRA got yesterday. The Secretary of State says that certain activities will taper off. They will not, because there will be election campaigns in May and June and there will be exploitation at a rate of knots by members of the IRA.
How will they do it? We have already put our finger on one inconsistency. As I said, a district council member may speak on a socio-economic issue as a member of a district council, but he cannot speak on behalf of the organisation to which he belongs. What will he do? He will become a member of a tenants' association, and then he may speak every day of the week. He will become a member of a parent-teachers' association, and he may pontificate on education matters to his heart's content on television and radio. He can present himself as a concerned person with a social conscience who is dealing with the problems of ordinary people in the north of Ireland. Instead, he should be presented as someone who schemes to murder his fellow countrymen. The place for him to defend his murderous actions is on the screen.
The most effective piece of television journalism that I have seen for a long time occurred after the Enniskillen massacre, when the chairman of Fermanagh council was stripped and torn apart by the journalist in such a way that it has changed the face of Fermanagh district council and, perhaps, in the long term will change the political posts in that troubled area.
The measure will not be successful for the additional important reason that it provides an escape hatch for those who do not want to appear on television. Because of the immediacy of the problem in Northern Ireland, it is almost a daily demand. How nice it is to have the Government deciding that, in circumstances in which it is difficult to defend a point of view, one cannot defend it. When the phone rings I should love to say, "Sorry, the Government have decided that I cannot take part in your interview."
Sinn Fein, the IRA and other organisations now have the luxury of an escape hatch which they could not invent for themselves. During their debates about going political, the hard men of such organisations did not want it. For

hat reason? It was because it would break their secrecy cover. Who is giving them back their secrecy cover, taking them out of the public limelight, and giving them anonymity in the community? The Secretary of State is doing so with this measure. I regret that. The measure will not be able to do what it suggests, and it will be counter-productive.
Let us consider the other anomaly. When all those who are involved in the electoral process need the oxygen of publicity most—that is during the run-up to an election—will this measure keep them off the airwaves? Not at all. It will provide the exception. They will be able to take part in programmes during the run-up to an election, when they most need the oxygen of publicity. They will be able to sit in studios, puff their pipes and pontificate like theologians about the political process. People will not be aware of the scars and the dead bodies lying outside.
There is another electoral luxury, and we have seen it many times. They know that, in certain circumstances, they cannot win their arguments, so they opt out of appearing. Under the representation of the people legislation, every other candidate's involvement is wiped out also. They call the tune, not only when they involve themselves, but when they eliminate themselves from embarrassing situations. This measure was misjudged when it was born. It was a silly misjudgment then, and it has developed into a stupid, counter-productive piece of confusion that suits the purposes of the people at whom it is aimed.
This will not take the IRA and Sinn Fein off the stage. To put it differently, this will take them off the stage and put them into the wings, but it will also take the spotlight off the stage and put it into the wings with them. In other words, it will transfer the context in which they get their publicity.
This must be judged from different perspectives. No doubt I shall say things in relation to section 31 of the broadcasting legislation of the Irish Republic which people will not want to hear. It is incredible that for 51 weeks of the year I am told that the Republic of Ireland is a haven for terrorism, where outrages are plotted, bombs are hidden and guns are held, and then all of a sudden, because it suits the argument, I am told that section 31 has been effective. I do not believe that. It has been a smokescreen in the Republic of Ireland, just as it will be in the north. Why? Because BBC Northern Ireland, BBC London, ITV, UTV, Channel 4 and Welsh Television, which I do not get, go to the Republic and broadcast everything from the north of Ireland and here. In other words, it is a smokescreen there as I believe it will be in the north.
There is a much more fundamental point, on which the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) touched. Two per cent. of the people in the Republic of Ireland support electorally some of these organisations. These organisations are not part of the political landscape in the Republic of Ireland, but are marginal to it because they have been rejected at the polls by the people and marginalised. In the north of Ireland, 35 per cent. of the Nationalist community support Sinn Fein electorally. That is not a margin or a fringe, but a substantial part of the community. Surely the challenge is not to marginalise those people further into the hands of Sinn Fein and the IRA, but to bring them into the political process and constructive, peaceful politics such as we can and do create.
That is one fatal mistake in the argument for the restriction, and it is a crucial point. We simply cannot close our eyes to the attitude of 35 per cent. of the community. If we do, we shall embark on a process which we cannot end. We shall be on a slippery slope. Where does that slippery slope go? Perhaps we should ask where it started. It started with internment without trial, progressed through repressive legislation, the emergency provisions legislation, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, the Public Order Acts, the supergrass system, to the shoot-to-kill incidents. All those aberrations, all those bendings of the law and movements from the normal to the abnormal, which the PIRA and Sinn Fein want, are derogations from the highest standards. It is a duty of the House and of everybody in politics to ensure that we retain those high standards as far as possible, because once they start to slip it will take many years to bring them back.
On 19 October the Secretary of State referred to this as part of the strengthening pattern of action against terrorism. I call it part of the rake's progress that began in the 1970s, based on the cardinal error that somehow we can make the law defeat terrorism. We cannot. The law is there to administer justice, not to defeat terrorism. That is a cardinal error. The rake's progress has brought us down the slippery slope.
If one can govern a part of Britain only by suspending laws, creating emergency legislation, introducing measures such as the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984, and the Public Order Acts, by having troops, soldiers, policemen, the UDR and the SAS all over the place, as well by having, as I have in my constituency, armed Army camps for every 400 of the population, is there not a fundamental question to be asked about the British position in Northern Ireland?
Is not the fundamental question to be asked after 20 years of such events: are we on the right track? The Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein have led the Government by the nose down the road along which the Government did not decide to go, but where the Provisional IRA and Sinn Fein led them. The question that must be faced sooner or later is how far we should go down that road and when should we stop. When a Secretary of State, who is known for his liberal views, has to introduce this sort of measure, where will we go if it does not work? And it will not work, just as abandoning the right of silence, tampering with the franchise and the electoral process that we will soon have will not work, in the same way as supergrass systems and all the other things have not worked.
It is time that we considered the fundamental elements of the debate and questioned the continuing British presence in the north of Ireland. If we continue for another 20 to 30 years with what we have, it will be no use to the Nationalist party or those in the Unionist community. It cannot and will not give us peace, economic well-being, self-respect or all the things to which we are entitled. That is the fundamental problem posed by the measure.
I suggest that we have reached the point where, perhaps, this measure has crystallised some of the questions that we should not only ask, but should answer. This measure is the tip of the iceberg. It is of no help to the British people, who had to look at the people and horses blown up in Hyde park. The British people must watch while their own laws are tampered with—laws which they

treasure and wish to protect. Their relationship with their nearest neighbour, Northern Ireland, has soured, not just in the past 20 years, but for far longer, and that is causing international problems for this country. The hon. Member for Bexleyheath told us of his experiences. We know what has been said to the Prime Minister by South Africa and to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in Russia, and that is doing no good to this country internationally.
I suggest that it is time to ask those fundamental questions because if, after 20 years and the extent of the problem, all that the Government can think of censorship, not only are we back to square one, but we are many miles from a solution.

Mr. Roger Gale: The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) refered to normality. He seemed to imply that the press, and especially the broadcasters, have no responsibility for that normality. I have an interest as a journalist and as a member of the television branch of the National Union of Journalists; and, as a producer and a director, I am a member of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians. I have spent some years as a current affairs producer and as a freelance reporter. While I would not presume to suggest that I know Northern Ireland anything like as well as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, I have made programmes and filmed in Northern Ireland.
For most of the time that I was with the BBC, there was a clear code of practice. One simply did not give air time to terrorists or convicted criminals. There was no question about it; it just did not happen.
Sir Huw Wheldon, writing in 1967, said:
Detailed control over subject matter is exercised on specific production by a director and a producer with both artistic and public responsibilities. This is the least form of control. In case of any doubt the matter is referred to a departmental head or programme controller.
When Sir Huw wrote that, he was speaking about drama, but he went on to say:
This holds true of all television programmes.
There was a clear and safe system of upward referral. lf one was in doubt, one asked. I spent two and a half years on a current affairs programme on which the editor was a Marxist, the deputy editor was a Liverpudlian Socialist and the two producers, of whom I was one, were Conservatives. It was our proud boast, and still is, that in those two and a half years our politics did not influence our editorial judgment. I do not recall any of us being faced with any problems over the difficult decisions relating not only to terrorism in Northern Ireland but to terrorism worldwide that we were required to take.
That system of upward referral, self-denial and editorial responsibility began to break down. Unfortunately, the guidelines from the editor-in-chief became blurred. In autumn 1985 we had the "Real Lives" programme, with the IRA activist Martin McGuinness. Alan Protheroe, who at that time was the BBC's assistant director-general, justifying what the BBC had then permitted, said:
The public is entitled to know what and why terrorists are doing what they are doing.
The justification was extended to giving in-vision air time, which had never been done before, to people connected with crime—and that is what we are talking about.
At a BBC seminar on 2 December 1987, Ron Neill, deputy director and editor of BBC news, said:


It is not simply what you show that can make news coverage voyeuristic but how often you repeat what is, in itself, a valid image".
What Mr. Neil said ignores the cumulative effect that allows a listening or viewing audience to become gradually inured to violence so that it is possible for the BBC to broadcast items beginning with the words, "Last night another soldier … ", to which nobody pays much attention.

Ms. Short: I watched "Real Lives". We saw extremists from both sides explaining their position and why they held those beliefs. People in this country constantly say, "Why do they do it?" They deplore the violence and do not understand its origin. The programme was useful and interesting, particularly the views of the Loyalist extremist, because I had not heard that case put before. It did not attract me to it, but I want to understand why people in Northern Ireland are willing to engage in such violence. I trust that the British people have as big and intelligent a judgment as I do over those matters.

Mr. Gale: The case that I seek and will continue to seek to make is that there was a quite clear editorial understanding that one did not give in-vison air time to terrorists or criminals or to those who gave them succour. That is what this programme did, and, perhaps more important than that, it started to erode the guidelines so that nobody knew any more what was all right.
The BBC tried again in 1987. It issued production staff guidelines. The news guidelines said:
There is increasing public awareness and concern about violence in the news and increasing sensitivity about the plight of those who suffer—whether in Britain or abroad … Beware of the use of action footage for its own sake … Does the perpetrator appear to be enjoying the violence?
We have allowed people to be put on the screen who appeared to enjoy the violence that those whom they support have created. This appears to be a tirade against the BBC. It is not. The IBA is just as guilty.

Mr. Hattersley: This is a diatribe against both the BBC and the IBA.

Mr. Gale: The right hon. Gentleman has scarcely listened to the debate. I should be grateful if he paid a little attention to what I have to say. In the autumn edition of "Airwaves", Lord Thomson of Monifieth says:
I don't think the amount of problem programmes has changed at all. I think that the political concern about it has changed and become more of a political issue than it was.
So that is all right: it is the fault of the politicians, not the broadcasters.
Back in 1983, after the Harrods bomb, Danny Morrison, then deputy chief of Sinn Fein, was allowed to say on TV-am that he believed that the IRA was in tune with Sinn Fein. So the rot had set in at the IBA quite a long time earlier, and it was that weakened, emasculated, feeble IBA that allowed Thames Television to transmit "Death on the Rock" before the inquest had been held. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) is no longer present. I asked earlier whether he was prepared to put his reputation on the record and say that he believed that after the inquiry it would be found that"Death on the Rock" was an honest programme.

Ms. Short: One can make honest mistakes.

Mr. Gale: Before the system was eroded by those who tore away the guidelines, the IBA television programme guidelines said:
The IBA is required to satisfy itself that, so far as possible, 'nothing is included in the programmes which offends against good taste or decency or is likely to encourage or incite to crime or to lead to disorder or to be offensive to public feeling'. Interviews with criminals are likely to run the risk of infringing this section of the Broadcasting Act, and there needs always to be careful consideration whether or not such an interview is justified in the public interest.

Ms. Short: That has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Gale: Referring specifically to Northern Ireland, which certainly has something to do with the debate, the guidelines said:
Any plans for a programme item which explores and exposes the views of people who within the British Isles use or advocate violence or other criminal measures for the achievement of political ends must be referred to the IBA before any arrangements for filming or videotaping are made. A producer should therefore not plan to interview members of proscribed organisations, for example members of the Provisional IRA or other para-military organisations, without previous discussion with his/her company's top management. The management, if they think the item may be justified, will then consult the IBA.
That consultative process has broken down completely.

Mr. John Hume: The hon. Gentleman seems to think that the order will undermine the men of violence in Northern Ireland and those who support them. Can he explain the nonsense that, under the order, a Sinn Fein councillor who unequivocally supports the armed struggle—it is in the election manifesto—can be interviewed about community matters, social security matters, housing or unemployment, but when his paramilitary mates blow up a factory he cannot be asked to explain the contradiction? The Government are giving such people exactly what they want—they can be interviewed about the nice things but not about the atrocities.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman says that such people can be interviewed about nice things, but there is nothing to say that they must be interviewed about anything at all. Until the guidelines broke down, the situation was quite clear. One did not give air time, in-vision or radio appearance, succour or help to criminals of any kind at all. There was no argument about it—one simply did not do it. It did not take a genius to work out what one did or did not do.

Mr. Marlow: Further to the intervention of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), was Dr. Goebbels wrong, or is there a value in propaganda? If there is, why should we allow it on our public screens for men of violence in the IRA?

Mr. Gale: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I shall come to the propaganda element. I have seen quite a lot of it. I have spent too many hours, perhaps too late and too long, in video editing sections looking at the carnage on the screen in front of me. I have seen more of that than most hon. Members.

Ms. Diane Abbott: The hon. Gentleman worked in children's television.

Mr. Gale: The hon. Lady said that I worked in children's television. I knew that if I went on long enough some mug would raise that. For six months, in a career of


nearly 20 years in broadcasting in one form or another, I was proud and privileged to direct "Blue Peter." I also had a hand in "John Craven's News Round," which is made in close collaboration with the BBC Television newsroom. If the same care and attention were given to the general programming on the BBC and ITV that is given to children's programmes, we would not be discussing many of these problems.

Ms. Abbott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that I have nothing but respect for high quality children's television, such as "John Craven's News Round" and "Blue Peter." Could the hon. Gentleman spare us the histrionics about years spent editing footage of IRA atrocities when, in fact, his background in the media is somewhat different?

Mr. Gale: My background in the media was mainly in current affairs. I spent many hours making news and other current affairs programmes and many others reporting, and the children's television was just a part of that. I am sure that we can arrange to have some of this footage shown to the hon. Lady, if she wishes. Perhaps she would like to see the kind of carnage that is created and the kind of actions with which journalists deal day by day. I have respect for journalists.
These programmes offend the public. A MORI poll, carried out between 27 and 31 May 1988, interviewed 2,007 people in more than 150 constituencies—a fairly representative sample. The majority said that they did not wish to see terrorists on the screen in any circumstances. When pressed further, they said that they believed that screen appearances strengthened the status of terrorists.
Some hon. Members may know of Professor Paul Wilkinson, who works at Aberdeen university and who has carried out a study of terrorism which was published this year. He said:
If you allow a terrorist a platform he can too easily present his case with lies and obfuscation.
He continued:
I believe terrorist murderers and their apologists are the ultimate representatives of the pornography of violence.
I believe that, too, and so apparently does the new deputy director-general of the BBC. In the Fleming memorial lecture on 6 April this year, John Birt said:
The ethical foundation of British journalism is not firm. Craft standards are slipping. Moreover, British media operate under a system of law which undervalues our legitimate role. Worse still, the institutions we report on, and particularly the state, are too secretive.
I am sure that some Opposition Members agree.
All told, British journalism is not in a healthy condition, and is neither capable of serving nor allowed to serve society as it should. Until we in the media put our own house in order we shall not win the argument for a freer flow of information. If we do not put our house in order, more restrictions are likely, and we risk a spiral of decline …impartiality in broadcast journalism is a withering plant in need of some sustaining care and attention. And many broadcasters certainly need to have a keener sense of fairness towards their contributors…
The media, if they chose, could put their own house in order. They should work towards a greater sense of integrity, reliability and fairness, all for its own sake. We should have decent media.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if, over the years, the media had sought to give a balanced account of all views, including

the most extreme, rather than going for sensational matter designed to attract audiences., we might not be debating this measure?

Mr. Gale: I agree with my hon. Friend. Had the very fair systems of internal editorial control not been allowed to break down by those who were supposed to have been their guardians, we should not be discussing this measure. The question would be academic. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has had to bring the proposals before the House because those who were charged with that responsibility have failed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) mentioned those who had canvassed for the televising of the proceedings of the House. I do not wish to go down that blind alley, except to say that members of the Select Committee on Televising of Proceedings of the House went to view the Canadian Parliament. This may be of interest to you, Mr. Speaker, if to nobody else. When asked what the effect had been, the Speaker of the Canadian Parliament said that it rewarded outrageousness. The media are faced with escalating violence—the kind of thing that Ron Neil was talking about—the fact that because today's story is violent, tomorrow's story must be more violent if it is to he used at all. Tomorrow's stories have to be worse than today's if they are to make air time. That has happened in the Canadian Parliament, and it has happened in Northern Ireland.
We, the journalists, have given credibility to IRA funerals. We see masked men firing volleys over coffins—giving some kind of false dignity to the murderers. That dignity is not granted in southern Ireland, which has had such controls for 10 years. Last week I took part in a debate at Trinity college, Dublin, on a completely different subject. I was privileged to have the opportunity to discuss a number of matters with some members of the community who have held, and still hold, offices far more senior than any Labour Member has held. Every person said, "We have had this law in southern Ireland for 10 years"—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where is southern Ireland?"] Hon. Members are right. They said, "We have had the law here for 10 years." To answer the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, those people said, "We cannot understand why those to whom we seek to deny publicity can go to Ulster and appear on television programmes which are then rebroadcast and received on our own screens."
To me, the only surprise is that we did not do years ago what we are doing tonight. As a Member of Parliament, journalist and television director, I believe that the Government are right to lead where the IBA and the BBC have failed to lead. I question whether national measures will ever go far enough. Perhaps we need to reach international agreements that deny air time to terrorists if we are to have any hope of preventing the continual promotion of murder, hijack and all manner of violent crime. I hope that the BBC and independent television companies will take the reins back into their hands, where they used to be, and deny to terrorists who commit crimes of murder the drug that they crave—publicity. I do not think that that is censorship; I think it is common sense.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I feel very unlucky to have to follow that speech. So far, we have had a serious debate dealing with serious issues in a serious way. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) has dragged down that very necessary tone. He has also blown the gaff about what Conservative Members feel about the issue. He turned it from a serious debate about a real problem—the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) conducted it in that way—into an attack on public service broadcasting in general. His experience of broadcasting, about which he told us so much, has taught him nothing about the real merits of public service broadcasting.
The hon. Member for Thanet, North was right to complain about some of the things that have been happening recently in broadcasting and the rest of the media—they are serious and worrying. No man is an island, and nor is any country. If we diminish liberty in Northern Ireland, we diminish it here. Faced with the most secretive Government among Western democracies—and they are becoming increasingly so—our media are being browbeaten.
The problem with Britain is that we have an Official Secrets Act but no freedom of information legislation. Our broadcasting is regulated to try to set standards and allow diversity of opinion; but next week measures will be brought in to deregulate it. From a secretive Government comes increasing pressure by way of an attack on the only safeguard that we have—the media.
I am sorry about this measure. Until now, we had regarded the Home Secretary as one of the few remaining liberals in the Cabinet. In this same week, the right hon. Gentleman will introduce massive deregulation to broadcasting. He will free it up eventually to commercial broadcasting—to the Maxwells, Murdochs and Stevenses who already control our mass media. At the same time, the Home Secretary is bringing in repressive measures. We shall be left with a mixture of pap and trash, and the repression of any attempt by decent broadcasters to penetrate the truth.
Some hon. Members have pointed out that the repression will not stop here, that this sort of measure begets others. That can be seen in the recent history of broadcasting. I saw "Real Lives". It was right to make the programme, which dealt with both sides of the divide in Northern Ireland. It dealt fairly and squarely with the green and the orange, and showed that people who were prepared to pick up guns had a motivation for doing so. It was important for us to know what that motivation was. This is not just a problem of a ruthless, callous or murderous instinct. The problem that has emerged can be traced to motivations and origins that we must understand, because we are responsible for their solution.
What happened next? In order to stop "Real Lives", the Home Secretary had to bring pressure to bear and to write to the governors. The broadcasters resisted the repression and oppression and forced the Government to interfere openly and publicly. That was followed by a year in which the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) launched a series of attacks on the BBC and on public broadcasting. At the end of all that, when the next issue arose the BBC intervened itself. The Government's war of attrition against broadcasting forced it to impose

self-censorship at a lower level. Even that does not stop the repressors intervening; they merely intervene at a lower threshold.
This is what happened with "Zircon". The BBC resisted, but then intervened. "Zircon" was repressed, but that did not stop the Special Branch, controlled by the same Ministry that is supposed to safeguard the freedom of broadcasting—the Home Office—invading the BBC. A few weeks after that there was a series of exploratory programmes on a thing called "Spycatcher". That did not even get to the production stage because it was pulled out.
Censorship breeds self-censorship which is even more dangerous. As Bacon said, it is like the arrow that flies in the night. We never know what has been self-censored because it never sees the light of day. That is what is happening against the background of a total monopoly in the printed press. Three people control the popular press. We do not have a freedom of information Act but we have a secrecy Act which was introduced a few months ago with a great fanfare of trumpets.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Orders of the Day — BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Broadcasting and Terrorism in the name of the Prime Minister may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fallon.]

Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Mr. Buchan: That has made it even more difficult to arrive at the truth. The hon. Member for Thanet, North gave us a description of his history in broadcasting. The opportunities for freedom and openness of expression have been diminishing, not increasing. The most violent image that I have seen was that of a small child running down a road in Vietnam. The child was covered in napalm and burning. I do not know whether Rees-Mogg in his new job as the grand censor would have allowed that image to be shown, but it was among the images that stopped the war in Vietnam.
It is necessary to show some violence, because violence exists and should be seen. Virtually every interview that I have seen with an IRA spokesman has diminished IRA support and not increased it. Its support is increased if its members are exemplified as heroes against a repressive and censorious British Government.
This measure is not only repressive but stupid and self-defeating, and the Secretary of State knows it. He has been asked to act because Tory party conferences demand action and the Government take action that is repressive when the opposite is required. We need more openness about Northern Ireland. That is the answer. We are wrong if we think that, by ignoring the IRA, Ireland's problems will go away. The IRA will be with us until we get a political solution, and that requires understanding.
Censorship has increased and continues to increase. The Government intend to allow the monopolies of the commercial world to control our broadcasting. But the Government recognise the dangers of that and bring in a grand censor, Rees-Mogg, and give him a remit to deal with sex and violence. He is concerned not just with fictional sex or violence but also with current affairs and documentaries. That means that, for the first time, we have an internal censor dealing with standards which in themselves are beginning to affect the portrayal of truth,


not through fiction but in documentaries. That is a dangerous step, from the most dangerous and repressive Government that we have known.
If I were to take a text to quote to the House I would take it from a good old-fashioned Protestant puritan John Milton. The Secretary of State in this philistine Cabinet should remember that, when the "Areopagitica" by Milton was written in praise of freedom, it argued the case for the enemy to be heard. Milton said that it was the false prelates who should be heard—no country or society was perfect, and the only way to deal with a problem was to allow wrongs to be made known and openly discussed. He said that the way forward was through freedom for those with whom we disagree.
I disagree profoundly with Sinn Fein, and I totally reject the IRA, but they are at the moment legal. If he had the courage of his convictions, the Home Secretary would have brought in a law to deal with this. He has failed to do so and has brought in a diktat. I am not sure how legal that diktat is. What will happen if the broadcasting authorities say that they will interview someone from the IRA? What will happen? What will be the legal basis? Are we sure that we have it right?
The relationship between the Government and the broadcasting authorities was good. We were the pride of the world, but the standards of British broadcasting have been eroded. The example of John Birt was quoted by the hon. Member for Thanet, North, but the Secretary of State is now introducing the American habit of checkers on broadcast programmes.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Hear, hear.

Mr. Buchan: "Hear, hear," he says.
We are no longer allowed the editorial independence which alone can bring the diversity that we require properly to survive. The moment that we have a central diktat, thought goes out of the window. What a foolish paradox that today her ladyship goes off to Poland to lecture the Poles about freedom. She is to tell them that the shipyard must be saved, while the Government are closing a factory in the neighbouring constituency to mine, that freedom of expression must be allowed and that writers must be allowed freedom.
Two years ago, I took part in a conference with a number of people from the Soviet Union, at the Edinburgh festival. They were rejoicing that they were beginning to speak more freely. They were asked why the works of Solzhenitsyn should not be published and they said, "He does not speak the truth." I asked, "Who knows what the truth is? What is truth suggesting? Who can tell? The task is to let it be published and let the various truths clash." One man cheered—Yevtushenko himself. Now, the Russians are to publish Solzhenitsyn. There is progress in many places, but we are moving backward into darkness.

Mr. William Cash: The hon. Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) spoke in an unnecessary and irrelevant manner about the visit by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to Poland. The position that my right hon. Friend will adopt when she speaks in Poland will be in defence of the values that the Conservative party supports. We want to ensure that violence, whether it is

state-imposed violence or unlawful IRA violence, is not allowed to go unchallenged. On the bottom line, that is why we have made these proposals.
I pointed out in an earlier intervention that it is not only the Conservative party that has adopted this position at this time, for it was the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland in a Labour Government who adopted a similar position, for sound reasons, in 1977. We need responsible broadcasting, but we also need to contain terrorism and not give it publicity. Many examples have been given of how terrorist activities have been given unnecessary broadcasting time, but we shall have to look more carefully at the basis on which the BBC and the IBA exercise their powers under their charters.
We are talking about standards and self-regulation. Professor Paul Wilkinson has already been referred to, and it may be helpful to refer to one of the points that he made in his book, "Internal Terrorism and the Liberal State." Although he is a passionate opponent of terrorism, he thinks that the Home Secretary should have used his powers under the Broadcasting Acts to ban a programme in which the IRA was a participant. That position was taken by someone who is an acknowledged authority on terrorism. Professor Wilkinson has an acknowledged reputation in his field and has spent many years studying and considering such questions.
In 1983, a book about televising terrorism was published. The authors drew the conclusion that because cumulative protests by the public during the previous 10 years—that is from 1973 to 1983—had effectively brought television interviews to an end, it appeared that no formal ban was required. Evidently, the whole basis of that argument has been undermined by the continuing attention that the broadcasting authorities have given to interviews that would be prohibited by the directions.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), whose argument was described as conclusive by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), made derisory coments about my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart). He said that it was absurd and fatuous for him to say that people should raise the matter with the Home Office. However, if one is considering the independence of the BBC, and if one concedes that in the charter and in the Act there should be a power—such a power is conceded by Opposition Members—to exercise such a ban by notice or direction, if it is self-evident that the BBC and the IBA and those on the upward reference through the system have not been complying with the powers that they have to ensure that a proper standard is being observed in matters of this kind, clearly the matter has to be dealt with at a higher level. Precisely those powers are contained in the charter and in the Independent Broadcasting Authority Act 1973.

Mr. Hattersley: The hon. Gentleman is terrifyingly ignorant. If the BBC or the IBA is failing to fulfil its obligations under the law, it is the law that must deal with it. The idea that the Government act as a court and that the IBA or BBC might ask the Government to say whether they are behaving illegally is in the nature of tyranny. It is a failure to distinguish between the courts and the Government. If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he understands nothing about what we are debating tonight.

Mr. Cash: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has made such an absurd comment. He has demonstrated that he does not have the faintest idea of what a charter is. He should be more careful before he starts bandying words with people who have some understanding of these matters.
The ban has become necessary because the authorities have neglected to exercise self-regulation in the public interest. That is what the chartered body is all about, that is what the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook does not understand, and that is why I support the motion.

Mr. George Galloway: I wanted to take part in this debate particularly because my constituency contains one of the most important pieces of broadcasting real estate—the headquarters of the BBC in Scotland in the leafy Queen Margaret drive.
In my first ever speech in the House I was compelled to address a recent celebrated clash between the Government and the broadcasters. It took the form of size 9 boots on the feet of the Strathclyde constabulary walking through the hallowed portals of the BBC in Scotland. The order for the swinging of those boots came, it is now clear, through however many prisms from a street in London not many yards from this building. The reason for the order was the hunt for the enemy within. The enemy was perceived to be within those hallowed portals. A distinguished constituent of mine, Brian Barr, the producer of "The Secret Society" series, was being described as one of the enemies within. The Government have a fetish about enemies within, whether they are explicitly named, such as the president of the National Union of Mineworkers and the miners who supported him, or implicitly smeared, as in the recent decision over trade union membership at GCHQ. The Government are constantly looking for scapegoats on whom to blame their real problems.
Some new enemies within have been named today. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was accused by no less a personage than the Home Secretary of being an enemy within and encouraging Sinn Fein to stand in elections. He did no such thing. We had the even more outlandish suggestion by the hon. Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) that the noble Lord Thomson—no raving Trotskyite or secret Provo—might also be an enemy within for failing in his statutory obligation to control the IBA companies that operate under his auspices.
Things would be different if I believed that the measure was a spontaneous reaction from a Government with a specific point of view on the Irish question—different from mine, but they are entitled to it and they are the governing party. If I believed it was a one-off, temporary measure which would be removed one day, if I believed that the Government were introducing it because, as I recognise, they have suffered intimately from terrorist violence, and if I believed that it was an honest response to a specific situation, I, having considered the details, would say that it was not the most draconian piece of legislation or the most totalitarian measure that has ever been before the House. I was able to study the details, thanks to the splendid services of our Library, and I suspect that more than one hon. Member took advantages of those services. If I believed that this was introduced in isolation, I would still oppose it but I would understand it.
I believe that it is not an aberration or a specific reaction, but part of an ongoing process, a process occurring sometimes, in the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) quoting Bacon, "like the arrow that flies in the night" through self-censorship, sometimes in response to a specific outrage when there is more heat about than light. It is steadily reducing us not to a totalitarian or authoritarian state, but to a shabby second or third-rate democracy with imperfect democratic institutions and steadily eroding civil liberties. Because we are involved in that process, I believe that we should oppose the measure fervently. It is a process that we have seen under this Government and, to be honest, under the previous Labour Government. One of my first political experiences was campaigning against the last Labour Government's deportation of Philip Agee and Mark Hosenball. Under both Governments we have experienced an erosion of freedom and liberty.
There has been a series of vindictive prosecutions, under the Official Secrets Act 1911, of people such as Tisdall and Ponting. Under the process of erosion, broadcasting companies have been harassed. In his witch-hunts, the former chairman of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), pursued broadcasters such as Kate Adie and harassed the BBC.
Downing street has cheerfully contrived and organised a torrent of abuse about Thames Television's documentary "Death on the Rock". In advance of the investigation and inquiry, I do not concede that "Death on the Rock" was the farrago of errors that some Conservative Members described. We do not know all the truth, and I do not think that the court or the jury in Gibraltar believed that we knew all the truth about the events there.
As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) memorably said, the process of erosion is happening under the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974, with its invention, for the first time, of the concept of internal exile in this country. Under the Prevention of Terrorism Act, citizens of the United Kingdom can be told that they are in exile in a part of the United Kingdom and that they are not permitted to travel to another part of it.
In the Diplock courts people have been tried before one judge, with no jury, and received long sentences, often deservedly. Under the process of erosion, the Secretary of State intends to abolish the centuries-old right of silence of suspects, without that silence being held against them as evidence of their guilt, not only in Northern Ireland but England and Wales.
The process of erosion has apparently led to election candidates—including right hon. and hon. Members whose integrity and patriotism are without question—having to swear oaths before they can seek election to the House and re-endorsement from their constituents. The process is slowly diminishing us not to totalitarianism but to a shabby, third-rate democracy, which increasingly compares badly with our partners in the European Community.
At the heart of most of the process of erosion is the Irish question. This is not the time or place to try to set to right the Irish question, which is not 20 years but centuries old. I am clear in my opinion that the Irish question is of such seriousness that there should be far more debate in the House. Almost as a knee-jerk reaction we deal with each atrocity and have a discussion about number plates or the


carnage on our television screens. Neither hon. Members nor any of the major political party conferences give serious analysis or attention to the Irish question.
I am clear in my mind that it is time for Britain to leave Ireland. Partition is the original sin in Ireland. We are already paying too high a price for maintaining our presence in Ireland—in the lives of our young soldiers, many of whom are teenagers, and in the expenditure of treasure from our national Exchequer, which is needed for many other things. Increasingly, our presence is leading to a deterioration in our international reputation.
It is not necessary for hon. Members to agree with me that partition is the original sin. Surely we can all agree that Britain has a serious problem in Ireland. A serious and bloody problem requires more serious measures than the pathetic and laughable contribution that the Government are making with this measure.
I cannot believe that someone of the intellectual weight of the Home Secretary really believes that a political movement such as Sinn Fein will be diminished by the order. It has a centuries-old tradition. It has mass support —35 per cent. of the nationalist community in the north of Ireland is mass support. With respect to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), 100,000 people cannot all be sewer rats; they cannot all be murderers. Those 100,000 people vote for Sinn Fein. In some parts of Northern Ireland it is the major party. If the age at which people can vote were reduced from 18 to 16, Sinn Fein would sweep to power in many more areas. Whatever anyone in this Chamber might think of Sinn

Fein, it is a movement with mass support. Does any hon. Member really believe that that support will be diminished if people can only look at a still photograph of Gerry Adams while an actor enunciates his words? If so, he cannot be a serious politician and he cannot be addressing seriously the critical question of Ireland.
To some extent my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South has stolen my thunder. It is a supreme and dismal irony that we are discussing this measure on the day that the Prime Minister has touched down in Warsaw. She has gone to Poland for some strange reason. Notwithstanding her meeting with Lech Walesa, I presume that it is not to discuss trade union freedom. The sacking of the trade unionists at GCHQ in Cheltenham surely makes that redundant. No Prime Minister of Britain could be such a hypocrite as to discuss trade union freedom in Poland, given what the right hon. Lady has done in this country.
According to an editorial in one Tory newspaper this morning, the Prime Minister has gone to Poland to talk about just one issue—freedom. If she has gone to Warsaw to talk to General Jaruzelski about freedom, I hope that she has the grace to be embarrassed when he, as he will, gives her a transcript of this debate as she prattles about censorship.
At a time when the winds of change, reform and, yes, liberalism are blowing throughout eastern Europe, it is a dismal irony that our Prime Minister should be going to Poland from a country where the winds are blowing in the opposite direction.

Rev. William McCrea: During the parliamentary recess, my constituency was plunged into tremendous sorrow at the death of eight young soldiers. It was in my Mid-Ulster constituency that those young lads were brutally done to death by the IRA, which has no regret for what it has done. In fact, it was delighted to gloat over those murders.
The other day I walked to yet another graveside, that of a young 20-year-old reserve constable who was murdered in County Fermanagh as he was doing his duty in defence of freedom. He was brutally done to death by the terrorists. There were few Members of this House at his funeral. I stood by his open grave. Hon. Members do not know the reality of the deep sorrow felt by those who have gone through 20 years of murder and destruction.
Opposition Members must make up their minds. One Labour Member said that every interview with the IRA on television diminishes support for that organisation. There have been interviews with IRA members for 20 years. If every interview over the past 20 years represented diminishing support, one would expect them to have no support now, but that is not true. It sounds good, it is a nice argument to present, but it is not factual.
A moment ago, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said that 100,000 people vote in support of Sinn Fein under the same label as that of the IRA. He went further than that. He said that, instead of interviews causing diminishing support for the IRA and if the voting age were lowered to 16—Hansard will confirm this—the IRA would sweep the board.

Mr. Galloway: Sinn Fein.

Rev. William McCrea: Yes, Sinn Fein. We must realise that Sinn Fein is the political voice of the IRA and is under the instructions of the military wing of the IRA. The hon. Gentleman said that, instead of receiving diminishing support, the IRA would sweep the board. One Opposition Member said that keeping IRA members from the media will lead to diminishing support, but the next Opposition voice said that it will increase support.
It is possible for some people to pretend that they can have it both ways, but Her Majesty's Opposition must make up their minds about what case they will present on this serious matter. It affects the lives of people not only in Northern Ireland—they are a part of the United Kingdom—but in the whole United Kingdom.
Listening to the debate, one would think that we were talking about a mothers' union and not about murderers. We must get away from the farcical idea that we are talking about a little mothers' group, sitting in the corner of a nice little room discussing the next cake that they will bake. We are talking about the representatives and spokesmen of cold-blooded murderers. That is the issue, and the House should recognise it.
I have listened carefully to the debate. I have not heard much said on behalf of the victims who must watch IRA members appear on television and gloat over what they have done. I am sure that that is hurtful. In the Strangers' Gallery is a young man whose young fiancee was murdered by the IRA. The IRA fired 46 bullets into her body. That was not a little picnic or party. I assure hon. Members that

someone should not gloat over or romanticise the activities of the IRA. We are talking about sadistic murderers who have carried out some of the most brutal crimes.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Why does the hon. Gentleman not tell us about the UDA?

Rev. William McCrea: The hon. Gentleman is shouting from his usual position.
I shall vote for this measure in the Lobby tonight, bearing in mind what has been recommended by the Home Secretary, and that includes more than the IRA.
It must be clearly stated in the House that there has been a campaign of murder in Northern Ireland, and people are trying to romanticise it. The House should realise that it is dealing with callous, cold-blooded murderers and, equally, cold-blooded spokesmen for murderers.
The restrictions should have been forthcoming from the media. The media must carry a certain amount of the responsibility for this measure. Has the House any idea of the revulsion, resentment and hurt that media coverage causes the suffering families throughout the United Kingdom? They are not confined to Northern Ireland. Those eight young British soldier laddies belonged to and lived in this part of the United Kingdom. Their families suffer equally. If one listened to the interview with the father of one of them, one would understand his deep hurt at a spokesman for a terrorist organisation gloating over, smiling and cheering at what was done on that Ballygawley road. It was barbaric. Anyone who looked at that carnage could not say that the spokesman had any right to be heard on the media and air waves of the United Kingdom.
When the terrorists murdered that young girl, not only did they gloat, but they gave the sickening excuse that they thought that she and her young lad were connected with the security forces, but had made a mistake. "Sorry; we made a mistake." That is sickening. If hon. Members could only feel what it is like. One cannot understand unless it happens to oneself. One cannot know what a family goes through unless one is there or is part of the family. It is easy to pontificate about how one should react. Some may suggest that one should kiss the murderer for slaying one's son or daughter. It is about time proper action was taken to stop the long carnage and murder campaign in our beloved Province and throughout the United Kingdom.
This may be a small step, but I encourage the Government on behalf of the people of Northern Ireland to take further steps. As the Prime Minister said in her statement on the Province, we should not be satisfied until we eradicate terrorism. That should be our goal. The measures already announced will not solve terrorism. This is a small step and I will not cast it aside, as if it should be rejected.
The Government should take the further step of proscribing Sinn Fein. It is not a political party or part of the democratic process. Let no one try to justify its sickening deeds under the name of democracy. I do not care whether we are talking about housing—the IRA has blown more houses out of existence than anyone else—or jobs—the IRA has blown up jobs, leaving people jobless. Let not their apologists come on the box and tell us how sad they are about bread-and-butter issues, because they are the cancer in our midst that should be torn out and


destroyed to allow the good people of Northern Ireland, from whatever section they come—and they come from all sections—to live in peace and stability.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman understand that this measure will allow Sinn Fein to debate housing, health and education issues and will not allow anyone to criticise its heinous atrocities of the previous night? That is the fallacy of the proposal.

Rev. William McCrea: If the hon. Gentleman was listening carefully, he would understand that that is why I suggested that Sinn Fein should be proscribed. It would remove completely the facade of democracy. Sinn Fein should be robbed of that facade and should not sit on district councils.
I say to the hon. Gentleman that I found it interesting that his hon. Friend was talking about the media stripping apart the Sinn Fein chairman of Fermanagh. I would accept that as a genuine statement—I would be glad to give way on this point—if the members of the SDLP had not voted Sinn Fein into the chairmanship of Strabane district council. In fact, in June it was the votes of the SDLP that gave the chairmanship of Strabane district council to Sinn Fein. That is not romantic nonsense; it is a fact.

Mr. McCrady: I shall refer to instances when the hon. Gentleman's party and the Official Unionist party made pacts with Sinn Fein in the council chambers of Newry and Mourne, represented by the hon. Gentleman, and Down district for the same purposes.

Rev. William McCrea: I say clearly that if the hon. Gentleman could produce—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer".] I shall answer, have no fear of that. If the House can be told tonight what Sinn Fein chairman or councillor was elected by the votes of the Ulster Unionists and the Democratic Unionists, I shall be glad to give away. The hon. Gentleman's last statement was nonsense, because the facts stand. The books can be displayed so that everyone can see that the SDLP voted Sinn Fein into the high office of chairman of Strabane district council, as it did two years ago in Omagh district council and as it did three years ago in Fermanagh district council. They have walked hand in hand in the council chambers. It has also voted for the past four years to elect the Sinn Fein vice-chairman of Magherafelt district council. However, that is taking us away from the issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the questions".] The statement made by the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is completely untrue. We have made no arrangement with Sinn Fein. I have put forward facts, which I would be delighted to hear challenged. I shall be glad to bring to the House our voting record. I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman would also bring his party's voting records.
After the Gibraltar incident, the media in Northern Ireland told us first that the coffins were being taken from Gibraltar and moved to Dublin, then that the coffins were moved near the border, then that they were going over the border, and then that the coffins of these IRA persons were going to west Belfast. We were treated to this IRA propaganda hour after hour. I ask any hon. Member to find out how much time was given last week by the media to reserve constable McCrone's funeral. His funeral was in the afternoon and was not mentioned on BBC radio that morning. He was not worthy of a mention. He only

happened to be a reserve constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary and a member of the security forces—that does not make a good enough story.
I shall mention one other incident that caused me concern. In Aughnacloy there was a serious incident where a young soldier discharged his weapon and a person was killed—Mr. McAnespie. Immediately, the media took the statements and conveyed it across the world that McAnespie was shot in the back by a deliberate discharge of a weapon by a soldier. Not only that young soldier, but also his colleagues were put into great danger. It was proved that he did not murder Mr. McAnespie at all. An inquiry was carried out by the Government of the south of Ireland to back that up. We have yet to hear the findings, because his body was exhumed to find out whether the claims were true.
No one came back to apologise to the young soldier. His name was spread across the world as a cold-blooded murderer. He was put in great danger, and now his life will always be in danger because of what the media did. That applies to his colleagues as well.
It is easy for people to spread those stories. It is one thing to drop feathers on the ground, but when the wind comes it is hard to pick them up again. It is one thing to spread a story against that young soldier and our young lads, whether they be in the Army, the UDR or the RUC. It is easy to come out with a story about "shoot to kill", but it is different when people are proved innocent.
Those lads and lasses are in grave danger. They have fought honourably to defend all the citizens of the United Kingdom. The House should give them as much backing as possible, and I shall do so tonight.

Ms. Clare Short: We should all have more respect for the denunciations of violence by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) if it was not for the fact that he and members of his party have such close entanglements with loyalist paramilitaries who engage in sectarian assassination—

Rev. William McCrea: Name one.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is true.

Rev. William McCrea: I challenge the hon. Lady to name one.

Ms. Short: The motion that we are discussing—

Rev. William McCrea: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. A serious charge has been made against an honourable Member of the House. I ask the hon. Lady to name one murderer with whom I have been associated, and I should prefer it if she did it outside—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that no breach of our Standing Orders has been committed. That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Ms. Short: Everyone in Northern Ireland knows that the leader of the hon. Gentleman's party has been photographed marching along the streets with masked loyalist paramilitaries.

Rev. William McCrea: Say it outside.

Ms. Short: I shall happily say it outside, and have done so already.
The motion that we are debating is deeply undemocratic and very insidious. On the word of one letter from the Home Secretary, the views that are voted for by as many as 42 per cent. of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland can no longer be reported on our broadcasting media.
Conservative Members have talked as if their denunciations of the violence of the IRA—they talked exclusively about that, not about loyalist paramilitary violence—will remove it from the face of the earth If only it were so. The problem that I should like to put to the ex-producer of "Blue Peter", the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), is that 42 per cent. of the nationalist population in Northern Ireland are willing to vote for Sinn Fein—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Disgraceful.

Ms. Short: The hon. Gentleman says, "Disgraceful." What are we supposed to do when a significant part of the population of the United Kingdom holds those views? Should we try to understand why? Should we allow the British people to try to do so? What an extraordinary thing it is that such a large number of people who are religious, who care for and love their children and elderly relatives and who are good people in every way that we assess other human beings are willing to vote in that way. The hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton) does not like it, but it is a fact.
What should we do? Should we remove that from our broadcasting? Should we not allow the British people to know it? Should we not allow them to hear why people are willing to vote in that way? That is what we are doing now. It will not remove the support for such violence or voting, but we are trying to prevent the British people from understanding why people in Northern Ireland are willing to vote in that way.
That is to talk only of the nationalist community. We know that in the loyalist community there is deep ambivalence when it comes to support for illegal activity. At times it supports it and associates itself with it and at other times it pretends that it is not prepared to do so.
The tragedy of Northern Ireland was born of the threat of revolution and mutiny in the British armed forces. Violence has been used by those on all sides of the argument ever since Ireland was partitioned. That is part of the reality that we must face. The British people are entitled to know that the Government want to lessen their ability to understand the facts.
In what way do the Government lessen the ability of the British people to understand? They say that anything that is said by those who defend or support the use of violence in Northern Ireland can be reported in our newspapers. It can be reported by others who quote their words. We can see pictures of those who speak in support of this view, and an actor can produce a voice-over. That is laid down in a Home Office letter. That is not an interpretation of the ruling by lawyers at the BBC and the IBA. That sort of reporting is allowed, but the people are not allowed to speak for themselves.
There is something deeply wrong with that. One advantage of the broadcasting media—television and radio—is that people can see for themselves the individuals who espouse a cause and advance an argument. The public

can make an assessment of such individuals, and that embraces their rationality, sincerity, attractiveness or ugliness.
It is notable that, on the "Call Nick Ross" programme, during which members of the public were telephoning to express support for the ban that was to be imposed on the broadcasting of those who support terrorism, there was reference to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), the leader of the Democratic Unionist party. The general understanding of many who phoned in to the programme was that the hon. Gentleman would no longer be able to broadcast on the media. That was extremely interesting.
Where are we now? The views of those who defend and support terrorism can be broadcast but the people are not to be allowed to judge for themselves what they think of those who hold that view. And the Conservative party told us that it was opposed to the nanny state. It seems that they do not trust the British people to make their own judgment. They find it necessary to intervene to prevent the British public from hearing why people in Northern Ireland are willing to kill one another in the course of their political disagreements.
Few Conservative Members have opposed the Government's policy, and the speeches in favour of it have gone much further than the ban that we are discussing. The speeches of many Conservative Members advocate complete censorship across the broadcasting media and the press. As it is inevitable that the ban will not work, it is inevitable that it will not reduce the level of violence. Indeed, it is likely to help to increase it.
I have no doubt that the demands of certain Conservative Members will be met in a few months' time. There will then be a further tightening of the screw and it will not be possible to produce a voice-over. A reporter will not be able to say why those who engage in violence seek to explain their involvement in it, and the ban will be extended to the press. That is the road that we are going down, and it is an extremely dangerous one.
We already have too much censorship of the broadcasting media in their coverage of Northern Ireland. It is vital that British people should understand why so many in Northern Ireland are willing to defend the use of violence in the advocacy of their political views.
Not long ago I watched a television programme that dealt with the father of a young British soldier who had been killed in Northern Ireland. The father went to Northern Ireland and he was filmed as he met representatives of the communities. He met an old man —he was sitting in his front room—whose son was imprisoned for having been involved in a paramilitary murder. The old man said that he was proud of his son. He said that he supported him. He thought his son was right and that the action in which he had engaged was necessary to achieve Irish freedom.
The father of the British soldier talked also with those in the other communities. When he returned, he said that he was glad that he made the journey and that he understood more about Ireland as a result of making it.
That was a useful television programme, but it would be illegal to make such a programme under the ban. The father of the British soldier would not be able to make the journey in an effort to understand affairs as they are in Northern Ireland.
We have to understand what is happening in Northern Ireland so that we can begin to attempt to put things right.


The House is outrageous in its neglect of the problems in Northern Ireland. Most hon. Members take no interest in Northern Ireland and do not visit it. It is treated like a colony. As long as the violence is contained over there, hon. Members hardly care. Because my father and others in my family come from Northern Ireland, I take a lot of trouble to visit it frequently. I take great care to try to meet representatives of both communities. I have had endless discussions with people in both communities who support the use of violence about why it happens. I want to understand the reasons and to remove the causes and the violence.
What do Conservative Members want to do? They want to contain the violence in Northern Ireland, allow it to continue and put a smokescreen over it and pretend that it is not happening. They do not want to allow the British people to understand why it is happening so that they can engage in the search for a solution to the problems. That is dangerous.
There has been much talk about the "oxygen of publicity" for terrorism. It is not the words of those who support the bullets and the bomb that get the publicity; the bullets and the bomb lead to the publicity. To remove the publicity, will we not have to go one step further? Will we not have to say that it is an offence to report that the bullets and the bombs are used in Northern Ireland? In response to the ban, the IRA said, "There is only one thing they understand—the gun. We have a way of speaking to them if they ban us from speaking. We can use violence to get our message across."
Anyone who tries to follow events in Northern Ireland will be aware of the debate in Sinn Fein and the IRA about whether to reduce the amount of violence they use and to rely instead on the politics of Sinn Fein and the ballot box. It would have been desirable if those who say that they should follow the political route had won, and there had been less violence from the republican side in Northern Ireland.
What is now likely to be the conclusion? All those who said, "Britain will not listen to reason; Britain will not listen to us when we act politically; Britain will not listen to our words; the only things that Britain understands are the bullet and the bomb," will feel vindicated. They will say, "We told you. There are banning directions. How can you use political action instead of political violence? They won't listen to us." They will feel strengthened. This move will increase the violence in Northern Ireland.
Those who are not allowed to broadcast include not just the representatives of the IRA, UDA, Sinn Fein and UVF but those who support their views. We must ask: who is to say who supports their views? When we were first told about the directions, I thought that the Government would go only for the IRA, Sinn Fein and so on, and then in a year or so they would start to question politicians who question the status quo in Northern Ireland and who, like me, believe that there will not be a solution until we get rid of partition and the border. I thought that the Government would start to say, "Because you advocate the same end as Sinn Fein and the IRA, you are not allowed to speak either."
What happened? We heard about the directions. On Sunday, an article in The Observer suggested that, because I was going to Antrim to go on "Any Questions" and because I hold the kind of views I do, I should not be allowed to broadcast. Conservative Members may think that that is okay. Later, there was an article in The Times

suggesting that I should not be allowed to broadcast. On that occasion, I was allowed to broadcast, but the hierarchy of the BBC went to Antrim to see whether there were any problems there. I wonder what will happen next time. Perhaps the broadcasters will stop inviting people like me to broadcast. That will be another form of censorship. This is the road down which we are going. That is the danger for our country.
I have a sense of foreboding. The Government are ripping out the strategies that lay behind the Anglo-Irish Agreement. The agreement said that we had to stop the advance of Sinn Fein—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may disagree, but that is my understanding of the strategy behind it. The British Government were so worried by 'the advance of Sinn Fein and by political support for Sinn Fein that they decided to deliver reform to the nationalist community in Northern Ireland. They promised association with Dublin, improvements in the criminal justice system, respect for the Irish language and so on. None of those reforms has been delivered. Instead, we see repression. In addition to this ban, the right to silence is to be ended and an oath is to be demanded from people standing for election.
It is rumoured that the Government are looking for further examples of measures from the Republic of Ireland. But what is wrong in the Republic of Ireland is wrong here. The fact that something happens in the Republic of Ireland does not make it right here. We shall certainly not be intimidated by the argument that we should look to the Republic of Ireland for examples. Divorce is not allowed in the Republic of Ireland. Are those who shout that we should imitate the Republic in favour of that? We are told that the Government are thinking of proposing that in future someone may be accused of being a member of a paramilitary organisation on the say-so of one policemen and will have no defence.
The Government are getting rid of reform and going for repression. Under a smokescreen of censorship, the violence may be let rip. The British people will not be allowed to understand it, and the real danger is that bloodshed and death on the present scale will continue indefinitely in Northern Ireland. That is a real prospect, and the action of the Secretary of State makes it more rather than less likely.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: When the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) goes back to Northern Ireland, perhaps she will take with her a straight message from the House. There will, indeed, be repression. There will be repression against men of violence who use the bomb, the car bomb and the bullet to maim and injure innocent people. Opposition Members may have some doubts about the introduction of measures to deal with terrorism, but there is no doubt about Conservative Members' resolve to do so. Conservative Members do not vote against renewing the prevention of terrorism orders, whereas Labour Members repeatedly do.
Although the hon. Member for Ladywood introduced a certain divisive note into our proceedings, we have had a good debate. I start by reminding the House of Voltaire's saying:
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
That is an adage to which most hon. Members would subscribe, even if there is a degree of intolerance among


Labour Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) made that point, and we fully respect his views on the matter. Voltaire did not, however, say, "I disapprove of what you do, but I will defend to the death your right to do it." While we may be prepared to defend someone's right to say something, we do not defend their right to perpetrate certain acts.
Parliament is well advised to discuss carefully a measure that is introducing a degree of limitation on freedom of expression and to a certain extent restricting the rights of broadcasters. It is absolutely right that we should have had the opportunity of such a long debate.
I do not think that simple concern with freedom of expression should inhibit us from taking action where it is necessary and justified. A compelling case has been presented to us by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), who told us what hon. Members from Ulster go through day in, day out, in their constituencies as they attend funerals and console the bereaved. The IRA and its supporters show no signs of letting up their unremitting, unspeakable programme of brutal killings, which are as calculated and cowardly as any committed anywhere in the world by repressive organisations.
We approach this debate against the background of what is happening in Northern Ireland. It affects us, as individual Members of Parliament. Some right hon. and hon. Members have to put up with onerous restraints on their day-to-day lives merely because the IRA continually threatens them and their families. They cannot behave like ordinary people, because they are always under threat from those cowardly and brutal people. The IRA and its supporters undoubtedly revel in the publicity and authority that broadcasting confers on them. Broadcasting, particularly by television, is a far more potent medium than the printed word, which is why my right hon. Friend was right to make a distinction between broadcasting and the written word.
I agree with my hon. Friends who have suggested that the broadcasters have failed to comply with their own guidelines. Many examples of that, such as the programme "Real Lives", have been given in the debate. Had they observed those guidelines, we might not have been in this position today. The broadcasters cannot completely absolve themselves of any resposibility for what is going on in Northern Ireland, or for this measure.
Too often the need for balance is used by broadcasters as an excuse to give air time to terrorists. There can be no balance between law-abiding citizens who seek to bring about change by peacefully persuading their fellow citizens of the need for it, and terrorists. I do not see why terrorists and their apologists should enjoy the same benefits of a civilised society as are enjoyed by the rest of the people, who forswear the gun and the bomb.
Some broadcasters are so arrogant that they do not believe they are part of this country. That was the problem during the Falklands campaign, when our troops were referred to as the British troops. There can be no excuse, either, for the Thames Television programme "Death on the Rock". I and most of my hon. Friends thought it an outrageous attempt to scour the Rock to find someone to say something to undermine the SAS. To judge from my post—perhaps other hon. Members have read different

views in theirs—most British people completely supported the noble efforts of the SAS to prevent bloodshed and mayhem in Gibraltar.
Some hon. Members have suggested that the Government are heading down a slippery slope. I am surprised at that view. They have all paid tribute to the liberal nature of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and to suggest that he would be party to sliding down such a slope would be to misunderstand his character. I see no slippery slope. We are waging war against terrorism—

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Howarth: I would rather not; time is short.
This war is being waged throughout the United Kingdom. We accept certain restrictions as a result. Northern Ireland has the Diplock courts and the presence of armed soldiers, although I may say that on my four-day visit there I saw only two armed soldiers. We accept these restrictions, sad though it is that we must impose them. This further restriction should be accepted, too.
We are at war with the IRA and it is right to use appropriate measures. During the second world war nobody said that we should not have internment or any of the other draconian measures that were brought in to deal with the situation.
The man who represents Sinn Fein and who got himself elected to this House spoke on Radio Ulster on the day that Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's house was bombed. I was in Northern Ireland on that day. On that programme he warned civil servants of the risks that they were running in working for the security services. He said that the IRA was giving them a chance to resign. As the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster so rightly said, that explicitly illustrates that Sinn Fein is but the mouthpiece of the IRA.
There is a remedy for those in Sinn Fein who do not like what the Government are doing. They can renounce violence. If they do that the House might take a different view of them, but as long as Sinn Fein has representatives such as Gerry Adams saying what he does, the House is right to take its present view of Sinn Fein.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) is not in the Chamber. He suggested that the Home Secretary was under pressure to bring this motion before the House. There is no doubt about that. However, the pressure did not come simply from Conservative Members, because some of my hon. Friends oppose the motion. The pressure comes from the British people, who want something to be done. We must be careful to resist pressure to do the wrong thing. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary acknowledged that this measure would not in itself stop terrorism. However, it is a more constructive approach than the one adopted by some Opposition Members who meet members of Sinn Fein and invite them to attend Labour party gatherings.
This measure is constructive. It is designed to try to help, and it attempts to respond to the legitimate concerns of our people. Hon. Members are entitled to respond to those concerns. The measure does not restrict the reporting of opinions, but deprives those who are the front men for the perpetrators of violence of the authority that television confers upon them. This step is supported by the great majority of the British people. One of my hon. Friends mentioned a MORI poll reported in a recent edition of the Reader's Digest. That showed that 69 per


cent. of people interviewed believed that terrorist organisations should not be allowed under any circumstance to express their views on television. Sixty-six per cent. felt that the reporting on television of terrorist activities enhanced the status of terrorists.
Quite clearly, this measure enjoys the support of the people. If the high percentage of people supporting the measure are all Tories, that demonstrates the low level to which the Labour party has sunk in public opinion. Similar measures have already been taken in the Republic of Ireland, and the British broadcasting authorities are able to reach most of the people in the Republic. I hope that Governor Dukakis will be told that the Republic of Ireland has more draconian measures than those being introduced by our Government. These measures demonstrate the commitment of the Government to deal with the men of violence. That is why I support the motion.

Mr. David Winnick: Parts of the speech by the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth) justify Opposition apprehensions about the motion. Conservative Members have made much of the level of terrorism and the atrocities. No Opposition Member in any way justifies the terrorism and the atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA or by sectarian killers on the other side in Northern Ireland. We are all opposed to terrorism and violence. I have always taken the view that, even if the campaign that has been waged over 18 years brought the IRA success in its objective, a united Ireland brought about by killing and terrorism would not be viable and would not be able to survive. That is all the more reason to be against not only terrorism and violence, from whichever side in Northern Ireland it comes, but the methods of the IRA.
I do not deny that I want a united Ireland, but I want an Ireland united through consent and negotiation—certainly negotiation involving the people of Northern Ireland and of the Republic. Above all else, there must be consensus, or such a unitary state could not survive.

Mr. Hunter: Will the hon. Gentleman include in the thesis that he is propounding a direct explanation of why and how, a fortnight ago. Haringey borough council had on its premises an exhibition extolling the virtues of the IRA?

Mr. Winnick: I will give the hon. Gentleman some satisfaction when I express my view as a Member of Parliament. I was not in favour of the exhibition, and I did not know about it until I read about it in a London paper. I know that, once he was notified, the leader of the council made sure that the exhibition received no funding from the council. What purpose is served by raking up all these matters when we are concerned, as a House of Commons, to oppose terrorism and try to make progress? Such interventions do not help the victims or the potential victims of the IRA.

Mr. James Couchman: The hon. Gentleman is condemning terrorism in a most forceful way. Would he include in that condemnation the African National Congress?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That is straying rather far from the motion.

Mr. Winnick: It is difficult to imagine a more stupidly irrelevant question than one which linked the position in southern Africa with that in Northern Ireland. I had always assumed that Northern Ireland was part of the United Kingdom, that democracy existed in Northern Ireland, and that everyone there, no matter how nationalist or republican, could vote. That is why we have my hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who take a nationalist point of view. They have not been deprived of the right to vote. The situation in southern Africa is totally different.
Are we to take it that, as a result of the Government's ban, there will be any reduction in violence? Will a single life be saved from terrorism in Northern Ireland or on the mainland? The Home Secretary has not suggested that one would. He has not argued that the motion will reduce the level of violence.
Much has been said about the votes for Sinn Fein. I believe I may be as wrong as any other person—that though the leaders of Sinn Fein have links with the IRA—and I would not wish to deny that—not all those who vote for Sinn Fein in Northern Ireland necessarily support the terrorist campaign. They vote that way, or a large number do, for all kinds of reasons—deprivation and economic and housing misery. Therefore, it would not be right to conclude that all voters for Sinn Fein are necessarily supporters of terrorism.
I take the view that, at most, the leaders of Sinn Fein look on the ban as a mild irritation, although they may say different things publicly and give the impression that they view this as a great setback. Some Tory Members may say that even if it is only a mild irritation, it is better than nothing. We should compare that with the unfavourable propaganda that this country suffers abroad, particularly in the United States. The supporters of the Provisional IRA in the United States—Noraid, the hard-core supporters of terrorism living there—want to persuade the majority of Americans of Irish origin that Britain is totally in the wrong and that the struggle waged by the Provisional IRA is justified. That is not my view, as I have already explained to the House. I believe that the ban provides further ammunition for the propaganda of the supporters of Noraid and the supporters of the Provisional IRA in various European countries who want to portray this country as waging a colonial war in Northern Ireland. They will say that the British Government are so terrified of the representatives of the Provisional Sinn Fein appearing on television that they have to take this step.
Have the broadcasting authorities abused their power? Is it being argued today that the supporters and leaders of Provisional Sinn Fein have been interviewed constantly? Like most hon. Members, I do not watch television all that often, but in the television news that I have seen I have not seen the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) interviewed so often. I have certainly seen him interviewed when there has been a particular atrocity that has embarrassed the Provisional IRA and Provisional Sinn Fein. I have seen the hon. Gentleman trying to explain and rationalise something which simply cannot be explained away. Surely it is right and proper for the broadcasting authorities to interview someone like the hon. Member for Belfast, West when some atrocity has been carried out and civilians have been killed so that millions of people can see the hon. Gentleman trying to explain that atrocity. Is there any evidence that people are persuaded by what the hon.


Member for Belfast, West has to say? Do they listen to him or to any of his colleagues when they are interviewed and say, "That is a rational argument"? There is no evidence whatsoever of that. Therefore, I do not accept that the broadcasting authorities have abused their power.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Winnick: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall not give way as time is getting on.
In his statement on 19 October the Home Secretary said:
Broadcasters have a dangerous and unenviable task in reporting events in Northern Ireland. This step is no criticism of them."—[Official Report, 19 October 1988; Vol. 138, c. 885.]
So the Home Secretary is not suggesting for one moment that the broadcasting authorities are wrong.
I believe that the ban is a panic reaction on the part of the Prime Minister. I blame the Prime Minister far more than the Home Secretary. I believe that when the Prime Minister heard about the further atrocities carried out by the Provisional IRA during the summer recess, she came to the conclusion that something had to be done and therefore the ban was imposed. My criticism of the Home Secretary is that he should have resisted the Prime Minister. He should have told the Prime Minister that this is not the way to go about it; that this will not help. Instead, the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland went along with the Prime Minister.
My final point has already been echoed by my hon. Friends. I believe that the Government have an authoritarian streak. In many ways, the Government have tried to undermine some of our liberties. I believe, for instance, that there has been a vendetta against the broadcasting authorities, first and foremost by the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), when he was the chairman of the Tory party, who put totally unfair and unjustified pressure on the broadcasting authorities, and particularly on the BBC. If we are faced with a Government with an authoritarian streak, as the Opposition we should be all the more on our guard to ensure that no steps are taken which further undermine any of our traditional liberties.
Of course, we shall lose the vote tonight. I am pleased that one or two Conservative Members have understood our concern and, whether or not they vote with us, realise what is at stake. I believe that the ban that has been imposed on the broadcasting authorities is wrong. It is not justified; it will not reduce the level of terrorism; and it will put us in the wrong internationally. That is why I shall vote against it.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has suggested that if we in the House introduce what he would consider to be illiberal measures, it will increase the level of support for the IRA in the United States. The level of support for the IRA in the United States is dependent on one thing alone, and that is the number of people it kills. If we can introduce measures in the House that will cut back the carnage in Northern Ireland, we will cut back the support for the IRA in the United States.
We have had from the Opposition an emotional plea in favour of editorial freedom. We are all in favour of editorial freedom. What do they mean by "editorial freedom"? What is it that they are seeking to support? Is it the editorial freedom that is currently enjoyed by The Sun newspaper? If that is what they are trying to defend, it is a novel aspect from the Labour party. I wonder whether the Opposition appreciate the changing nature and the imperatives of today's media.
We heard an eloquent speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). Do they realise that the media today are not about informing the public; they are about entertaining and stimulating the public? The media today seek to shock and titillate rather than to sustain serious debate. I am a little surprised that the Opposition seek to justify the form of editorial freedom, the "anything goes", irresponsible editorial freedom, that has been abused so much so that it can be used and abused by the IRA in its perverted campaign.
The Opposition say that they have a passionate commitment to freedom of speech. Conservative Members have a passionate commitment to freedom of speech. I wonder whether they have. Is it consistent with the thought police of the Left wing of the Labour party that we have seen marching up and down and parading throughout our country over the past few years? Do they support the freedom of speech for anyone, however evil? Do they support it for racists, murderers and child molesters? Would they support giving freedom of speech to Adolf Hitler, or to anyone, whatever damage they cause or however intolerant or intolerable they may be?
I am a little worried that the Opposition do not understand, after all our history, the value and effect of propaganda. Was Dr. Goebbels wrong? Was he naive? Were all those hours he spent broadcasting on German radio wasted? Did he waste all that time he spent carefully crafting and orchestrating his perverted and dreadful message? Do they want to allow the IRA the same opportunities and the same access to the media so that it can build up its image and credibility? That is what it would seek to do if it could.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) said that she felt that it was useful and worthwhile to allow people to come on our media to defend the right to kill. Is that what she really meant—to "defend"—or was it to sell, justify and propagate their evil campaign?
We are all concerned for civil liberties, but is not the greatest civil liberty the right to life? Over 2,500 people in Northern Ireland have been killed in this murderous campaign. That is equivalent to 100,000 people in the United Kingdom as a whole. Does the IRA think that if we had been suffering that level of violence on the mainland of the United Kingdom we would tolerate for one moment what we have been tolerating to date? The terrorists will grab every opportunity to parade on our television screens, not because they want to extend the intellectual debate but because it helps their cause. The objective of the measure is to starve them of the oxygen of publicity. The Government are right, and I support them.

Ms. Diane Abbott: I have only three points to make, and I shall do so succinctly.
Conservative Members have challenged Labour Members to say whether they support the African National Congress. I tell them that I do, and I shall happily give way to the hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Couchman) so that he can say why he supports the terrorist South African regime—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We have a narrow motion before us relating to Northern Ireland.

Ms. Abbott: The subject was introduced by the hon. Member for Gillingham; I was merely responding to it.
I have only two objections to the motion, one in practice and one in principle. My objection in practice is that, contrary to the hours and hours of speeches we heard from Conservative Members, the motion will do nothing to diminish the level of Northern Ireland's problems. The motion is propaganda, and the cynical politics of the gesture.
Conservative Members have spoken as if in a fundamental and essential way the IRA gains its political legitimacy from appearing on television, which is nonsense. The IRA's political legitimacy derives from the history of British involvement in Northern Ireland, from the abuses of power of the British occupying forces in Northern Ireland and, above all, from the fact that, contrary to what Conservative Members might like to think, the IRA has proved that it has the mass support of the Catholic electorate of Northern Ireland. Some 35 per cent. of the Catholic electorate vote for Sinn Fein. Labour Members believe that it is not the business of responsible politicians to try to pretend that Republican opinion does not exist and that it should be banished from the screen.
If the Government want to strike at the root of the IRA's political legitimacy, they must address the problems of history, the British Army and, above all, the fact that tens of thousands of people are happy to vote for Sinn Fein in a secret ballot. Nothing that Conservative Members have said has addressed those facts. My objection in practice to the motion is that it is cynical, it is the politics of the gesture and will not alter the number of killings in Northern Ireland by one.
My objection in principle is the attack that the motion makes on civil liberties. That argument has been well rehearsed so I shall not repeat it.
Nobody is saying that sombody should be allowed to go on television or radio and commit a crime or incite anyone to commit a criminal act. Merely because some Conservative Members or some members of the public find an individual or political party offensive, that is not a reason to ban them. If the Government wish to present a coherent position, they should ban Sinn Fein. Until it is a proscribed organisation, there is no intellectual consistency in allowing it to contest elections but not allowing its members to appear on television. In practice, the motion is wrong, in principle it is intellectually dishonest and Labour Members will vote against it.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I refute at the outset what the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) said? At no time did my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) defend the right of any person to kill. That was a foul calumny, and I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman uttered it.

Mr. Marlow: I said that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) defended the right of people to appear on television and defend the right to kill.

Mr. McNamara: My hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood did not say that.
Labour Members oppose this ban because we believe that it is wrong in principle and in expediency. It is an ill-considered measure that creates more problems than it solves and has nothing to do with the real difficulties that exist in Northern Ireland.
If it could be proved that the measure was justified in terms of expediency, there could be a case that the Opposition would have to consider more seriously. As it is, the broadcasting restrictions are so patently absurd that they should be dismissed out of hand.
In the ancient world, the messenger who brought bad news was liable to be silenced by a swift stroke of the sword. That is the sort of logic that underpins the order. Our ancestors eventually realised that bad news was better than no news, and put a stop to such practices. To pursue a sensible course of action., it is necessary to be well informed. In a democracy, that necessity extends to the citizens as a whole, because they have their part to play in the formation of policy.
It is clear that such limitations on the freedom of broadcasting were adopted hastily, without any serious thought about either their effect or their implementation. They are a panic response to the tragic and horrific events of this summer—a response inspired by the Prime Minister who, judging by her extraordinary interview in The Times, seems to be at variance with her Ministers about the temporary or permanent nature of the provisions. She referred to the suspension of civil liberties, but her Ministers have given no sign that the measures are not designed to be permanent. She said that the measures
have to suspend some of your civil liberties for a time.
We are entitled to know whether they are meant to be permanent or temporary.
The Prime Minister's contempt for her Ministers was shown when she apparently did not tell the Home Secretary about her attitude before he made his statement in the House. The right hon. Gentleman's position is rather tragic. He is, in many ways, striking a pose, pretending to be resonant: in his fight against the paramilitaries. Yet he knows from his experience in Northern Ireland and from the advice given by the Department—which his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has stood out against in the past—that in fact he is making a useless gesture.
It is a panic ban—that is quite clear from the developments since the original statement in the House. The truth is that the Government do not know what they are doing. They do not know what the ban is supposed to cover. They have already had to repeat and issue further clarifications to the broadcasting authorities.
That uncertainty pervades even the television companies. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said, there has been the ludicrous spectacle of a programme cleared by Channel 4 lawyers being prohibited by the laywers of IBA. The lawyers are now making the programmes, not the professional broadcasters.
The Government have not made it clear who or what is to be banned. The Government do not know and the broadcasting authorities are unclear. I shall cite some


examples. Can Robert Kee's outstanding series on Irish history, "The Green Flag", now be repeated on television? Will there be the strange spectacle of Gerry Adams holding forth on election programmes while the Open university will be prevented from allowing the Taoiseach in the Republic to talk about his father-in-law, the former Taoiseach, because of his participation in the Easter rising?
Even the right to report court proceedings—an essential requirement if justice is to be seen to be done—is not included in the two specific exceptions that the Home Secretary mentioned. We are entitled to know whether, in fact, that protection still exists.
What about the problems of fiction, which is being examined carefully by the broadcasting authorities? What do we make of O'Casey's "The Shadow of the Gunman"? Can we see or hear that on our television or radio? What about songs and music—for example, "The Rising of the Moon", "Who fears to speak of 98" and "The Sash"? Can we hear all those songs, which, in their various ways, attempt to support men of violence?

Mr. Julian Brazier: rose—

Mr. McNamara: With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, I do not wish to give way.
Some hon. Members from Northern Ireland, especially the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), praised the Home Secretary's action. However, any rigorous and impartial enforcement of the restrictions could well affect some members of the Unionist parties in Northern Ireland. Of Northern Ireland parties, only the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Alliance party have never flirted with paramilitaries. We know what the SDLP says to Sinn Fein, becaue it told us and it has published it. What we do not know is what some Unionist politicians discuss when they hob-nob with the UDA.
For example, do Members of the House who dress in paramilitary garb and make scarcely veiled threats to employ their illegally held shotguns for political purposes fall under the non-person category that will not be allowed on television, except for reports of what they say in the House? Will the leader of an armed incursion into the Republic of Ireland be granted free access to television and radio? Yet, when the rumour that we shall have the matter before the House was first mooted, will he be the first to rush to the media to support the ban against men of violence?
I for one, and my hon. Friends, would be opposed to depriving the British public and the public of all these islands of their right to hear the views of hon. Members from Northern Ireland, whether they are Unionists of the sort that I have described or otherwise. If people are allowed to continue unimpeded if the ban does not impinge upon them—they will once again be able to bring the British presence in Northern Ireland into disrepute. That is another example of the need to be even-handed, not just with the UDA, which I welcome if we are to have the resolution, but with all people who are associated with people of violence. They must all be included, even if they are Members of this House, and even if they take their seats in this House.
There is another consideration which reveals how the Government's surrender to apparent expediency is

short-sighted and counter-productive. For decades, the Foreign Office has resisted all approaches from foreign Governments to interfere with broadcasting on the ground that broadcasters are independent of the state. Now, however, the Home Secretary has opened the floodgates, and the Foreign Office is being besieged by various Governments. I understand that the Indian Government are looking for restrictions on Sikh nationalists. Presumably the Government will give equal consideration to requests from the Nicaraguan and Afghan Governments to ban the contras and the Mujaheddin from the World Service.
I heard carefully what the Home Secretary said about the measure being limited specifically to the problems in Northern Ireland, but he knows as well as I do that every foreign Government will accuse him and the British Government of hypocrisy on this matter, and challenge our bona fides if we do not practise abroad what we preach at home. Again, it is abundantly clear that the Government do not appreciate the international dimensions of the issue.
The Home Secretary tried to draw a distinction between people who had recently gone to the United States and were supporters of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail and would understand the reason for the ban, and others who view it differently. He does not seem to have taken on board the very first amendment of the American constitution, which I put to him, which states:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech or of the Press".
People in the United States will say, "You are flying right against one of the most cherished parts of our constitution." That will provide Noraid with ammunition and ability.

Sir Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No.
That is quite apart from the Home Secretary's complete misunderstanding of the Irish-American context, where it is not just recent immigrants there who have found that happening. That view is found all the way through the Irish-American context.

Sir Giles Shaw: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he will not give way.

Mr. McNamara: It is apparent that, once again, the international community has reacted unfavourably to the terms of this order. Once again, Britain, which used to boast of its democratic traditions and exported them throughout the world, is now becoming a cause of concern because a certain group are making themselves ridiculous by their actions.
The Prime Minister will now make criminals of foreign broadcasters if they beam their programmes into Britain by satellite. When, in her famous interview in The Times, she was asked what she would do about satellite television broadcasting, she said:
The only thing we could do here is to make it an offence to beam such stuff into the country if need be.
Are we to have legislation to outlaw satellite television which extols the virtues of the IRA? She is talking rubbish and the Government are behaving in a rubbishy manner.
Those are only the practical difficulties of this problem. There are matters which are wrong, not for practical reasons but in principle. The term "McCarthyite" is bandied about in a way which diminishes the full horrors of that period, but this is a case where it applies. Not only are the paramilitaries and some of their political allies to be banned from the airways, but so is anyone whom the broadcasting authorities might possibly believe might possibly say something which might possibly appear to be supportive of their political stance. They, too, will be denied access to radio and television.
Given the sort of arguments that are often used in this House, such as that the Anglo-Irish Agreement gives succour to the paramilitaries, even people who support the Government's policy could be subject to vilification. That is not the nonsense that it appears at first sight. It is a problem of the Government's creation. They are damaging the credibility of the media and the democratic process. This ban is worse than anything that P.W. Botha ever dreamed up.

Sir Giles Shaw: rose—

Mr. McNamara: At least in South Africa—

Sir Giles Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McNamara: No.
Bans are imposed on named individuals or groups, and reports are proceeded by a censorship warning. Will we have on our television screens, "This programme has been presented subject to the censorship rules of the British Government"? If it were to happen, what a terrible time it would be in the history of British broadcasting and of this Government.
What is worse, there will be no safeguards, even such as those that exist in South Africa. There will be secret blacklists, like those of the Economic League. People will be banned from the airwaves without their knowledge or any redress, and they will be unable to confront their accusers. Furthermore, the possibility of democratic and intelligent discussion of the conflict in Northern Ireland will disappear.

Sir Giles Shaw: Rubbish.

Mr. McNamara: The real problem is that I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman is saying about these orders. I only wish that he had got up during the debate and said that they are rubbish.

Sir Giles Shaw: rose—

Mr. McNamara: This is perhaps the worst—

Sir Giles Shaw: rose—

Mr. McNamara: The hon. Gentleman may indeed be rubbish, but he was not the one who was saying it of the measure.

Mr. Couchman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) to suggest that hon. Members on this side have been drinking all evening?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that that is not a point of order for me. We are having a serious debate.

Mr. McNamara: Those who have been drinking are in a happy position. Some of us have been waiting here for five or six hours for an opportunity to get one down before we go home.
The worst feature of the ban is that it will hinder the growth of understanding of these issues on these islands. In recent years, there has been much greater and much more informed interest in the conflict. It would be damaging if this process were now to be reversed, which is exactly what the Government are intent upon doing. They make offensive and unsubstantiated claims about the irresponsibility of the media, when we know how cautious and self-restrained the broadcasting authorities have been.
I recall the fight that I had with BBC Northern Ireland to get a minute and a half to reply to the Secretary of State's outrageous statements about taking away the right of silence. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, it is not as though members of the IRA were on every programme every day and we had to avoid them. The figures that he produced showed how difficult it has been for the IRA to appear on the screens, and how difficult the broadcasting media had made it for its programme producers to get their programmes on to the air. Yet we have now reached a further stage in the Prime Minister's campaign to subjugate the media, to censor all criticism and to destroy free speech.
Too often Northern Ireland has been used as a test bed for repressive legislation. We are now entitled to ask whether similar restrictions will be imposed on coverage of social unrest on this island when that periodically breaks out in mainland cities. Is this the thin edge of the wedge for such situations? Nothing in the Government's record should rule out such fears. It is already far too difficult for the media to make programmes about Ireland. It will now have even greater hesitation to inform the public of the realities of the situation in the Province. The damage that will be inflicted will be not on the IRA or on the UDR, but on those who seek to expose the bankruptcy of the policies of the paramilitaries.
I object to the ban on the ground that one does not defeat paramilitaries by turning one's head away from them. The problems of Northern Ireland are too real and too immediate. The Government refuse to tackle the roots of violence, and resort to measures such as this. In the words of the hon. Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (Mr. Maginnis)—with whose diagnosis of the problems of Northern Ireland, I would disagree, but with whose assessment of the value of the measure I would agree—the Government are merely tinkering with the periphery of the problem.
It is because the Labour party wants to stop the terrorism—not just to shut our ears to it—to regain the support of all sections of the community in Northern Ireland for the rule of law, and to have an impartial administration of justice that it opposes these provisions, which are counter-productive, dangerous for our civil liberties on this island, too, and succour for all those who are named in the measure.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Tim Renton): Apart from the ludicrous remark of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) that the


restrictions we are debating are more restrictive than anything ever introduced by P. W. Botha, this has been a serious and passionate debate.
I thank all my hon. Friends who have spoken in support of the motion, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Sir M. McNair-Wilson) for his powerful contribution, in which he spoke of the need for the media not to be equivocal in its approach to terrorism. That point was reinforced by the eloquent remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). I should like to thank, too, my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) for his thoughtful speech in which he said that in a free society it was right that our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should be given the powers that he has exercised in relation to the restriction on the broadcasting authorities. He also said that television coverage of terrorist acts can encourage other terrorist acts. I take note of the allegations that he made at the end of his remarks.
I am mindful, too, of the speeches at the end of the debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Mr. Howarth), who reminded us how much more potent a medium television is than the newspapers, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow), with his passionate defence of free speech. That leads me to my first point in reply to the debate.
The House is rightly jealous of free speech. That applies to hon. Members on both sides of the House, but let us get the perspective right. What we are debating is not a restriction on the freedom of speech. It is not a restriction on the freedom of information in Northern Ireland. It is simply a targeted measure that we are undertaking to prevent terrorists and their supporters from exploiting the broadcasting media by direct access to them.
Why are we doing this? Why did the House vote by a majority recently to televise our proceedings? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) agreed that he had voted for that. We are all agreed that television today is regarded as so powerful, so immediate, so vivid and so able to give respectability to those who appear on the screen that all politicians need it. All politicians take advantage of it. Whether or not we like the expression "the oxygen of publicity", we all experience it by appearing on television. Surely it is for that reason that at election time we have such strict rules on access to television—a complete ban on paid advertising, too. We have no such restrictions on newspapers at election time.
All the evidence suggests that the importance that Sinn Fein and the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams), whose name has been mentioned so much during the debate, attach to television is no less—in fact, rather more—than that of other politicians. Surely that is why camera crews are given access to paramilitary funerals in Northern Ireland. That is why Sinn Fein has given so many press conferences to television. That is why, after my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary's restrictions were announced, the hon. Member for Belfast, West was reported as saying that they would disadvantage Sinn Fein.
In Northern Ireland and, to a more limited extent, in Great Britain—

Mr. Hume: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No. With the greatest respect to the hon. Gentleman, the time is late and I think that the House would like me to make rapid progress.
In Northern Ireland and in Great Britain we face a well-organised and determined terrorist conspiracy. Supported wholeheartedly by Sinn Fein—a point strongly made by the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea)—the IRA campaign is based on ending the democratic process by the use of violence, murder and death, a fact that no one knows better than my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. The IRA seeks to impose a united Ireland dominated by the IRA, with no mandate whatsoever from the electorate in Northern Ireland or in the Irish Republic. Its aim is to brush aside democracy, using whatever means are available.
Terrorism will continue to be opposed and resisted by the Government at every opportunity. We are determined to take every step possible to ensure that it does not succeed. We have no choice in that when faced with terrorism and violence, for they can never be allowed to triumph.
It is simply against that background that the Government, after long and careful consideration—certainly not as a panic reaction, as suggested by the hon. Members for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and for Kingston upon Hull, North—decided that they should not stand idly by and watch the apologists for terrorism exploit and manipulate the broadcasting media. That is the sort of issue that I hoped would unite the House in view of our determination to suppress terrorism. It was, therefore, with some dismay that I listened to the exaggerated contributions of, for example, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) and the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
I repeat that we are not advocating any reduction in freedom of information. We are preventing in a limited manner, and only in the context of broadcasting, access to the media by those who use it to encourage support for terrorism. This is not a major departure for Ireland. Similar but tighter restrictions have applied in the Republic for many years.

Mr. Hume: Will the Minister confirm that under these measures members of Sinn Fein can be interviewed about any subject under the sun, except atrocities?

Mr. Renton: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has raised that issue. I can tell him that that is not the case, and that is precisely the point to which I am coming.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier, the broad effect of the directions is to prohibit direct speech over the air by a person representing one of the named organisations, or an oral statement by anyone who supports, or invites support, for one of the organisations. Thus, I say to the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) that all oral statements by Sinn Fein or UDA representatives would be caught, whether they were made at a public meeting, during an interview, or in a discussion programme, whatever the subject, if such statements were made by Sinn Fein or UDA representatives, or on behalf of those organisations. The restrictions do not prevent—

Mr. McNamara: rose—

Mr. Renton: I shall finish this point. The restrictions do not prevent the second hand reporting of such an oral statement, for example, by a news journalist, as we are of the opinion that this does not cause the same degree of impact or public concern, for the reasons that I have already explained.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Minister saying that no member of Sinn Fein will be allowed to speak directly on the radio or on television on any subject whatsoever? That is what he has just said to the House. That is not what we have interpreted from the directions and it is not true. That is not what the BBC and the IBA are saying, but it is what the Minister has just said.

Mr. Renton: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is not listening or concentrating. He did not listen to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said earlier this afternoon, and I shall repeat what he said in other words before I move on.
The restrictions apply to people who represent the organisations concerned. Elected councillors speaking on behalf of one of these organisations about council matters will he subject to the restrictions, whatever the actual subject under discussion. That is crystal clear—

Mr. Hattersley: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Renton: No, I shall not give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I have repeated what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I go on to say—

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Renton: I was talking about reporting. There is a public interest—[Interruption.] I am about to come to another point that the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. Hattersley: rose—

Mr. Renton: No. I shall make—[Interruption.] There is a public interest in reporting certain statements, for example—

Mr. Buchan: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. What protection can you give us when we have two Ministers from the same Department making two contradictory speeches? The Minister has contradicted the Home Secretary. Can we get the truth from one of them?

Madam Deputy Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Chair has no responsibility for the way in which Members or Ministers express themselves.

Mr. Renton: rose—

Mr. Mallon: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The debate has continued for six and half hours, and I ask whether it is right that we should leave it without having cleared up the confusion that was created initially by the Home Secretary, which has been compounded by the Minister.

Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair.

Mr. Renton: I believe that I have said precisely what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said. I suggest that the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) study Hansard tomorrow and they will see that is so.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook told us that the notices have caused confusion. The intention behind the directions issued by my right hon. Friend has always been clear. Equally, the content of the notices has been as clear as we could make it. As my right hon. Friend said, there are some who have an interest in being permanently confused about these issues. I fear that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook falls precisely into that category.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and the hon. Member for Birmingham. Ladywood (Ms. Short) appeared to have the trouble of being unable to decide whether the notices that my right hon. Friend had issued either went too far or did not go far enough. In the end, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, revelling in this apparent confusion of which he made so much, said that what we had undertaken was a pointless action. After my right hon. Friend's announcement, the right hon. Gentleman's old colleague, Lord Mason of Barnsley, who served in the same Government as the right hon. Gentleman in the 1970s as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, said:
it is defensible to stifle all outlets of those terrorist groups who are bent on undermining the authority of the state and intent upon smashing our democratic institutions … radio and television gives a degree of respectability to terrorist groups … It boosts their morale, aids their recruiting drives and helps to keep them in business. This measure is one step forward on the road to defeating terrorism and its propaganda."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 October 1988; Vol. 500, c. 1144.]
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that he considered it—I hope that I do not paraphrase his words wrongly—an insult to the people of Britain—

Mr. Robin Corbett: He was wrong.

Mr. Renton: It is very helpful to have that comment from the Labour Front Bench. I think that he was wrong, too. I am glad to have that support.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent said that it was an insult to the people of Britain that they would not be able to continue to see programmes on which the hon. Member for Belfast, West and supporters of Sinn Fein appeared. I remind him of what my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock and Burntwood said. Is it really an insult to the people of Britain that they should no longer see the hon. Member for Belfast, West, as they saw him after the attempted murder of Sir Kenneth Bloomfield, head of the Northern Ireland Civil Service, appearing on Radio Ulster and saying that civil servants who advised the security forces "run the risks" and that the IRA was giving them the chance to resign their positions? That appearance was an insult to the people of Britain. The fact that that appearance will no longer be permitted will give great satisfaction to the majority of the people of Britain, including those in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Foot: I was saying that it was an insult to the people of Britain, and to the people of Northern Ireland, for the Government to say that the people of this country cannot judge for themselves.

Mr. Renton: I have my words showing what the right hon. Gentleman said. I shall read them in Hansard tomorrow, too.

Sir Giles Shaw: rose—

Mr. Renton: With the greatest respect, I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said that 19 years of appearance on television had added not a farthing to terrorist support. If that is his view, why is it so contradicted by, for example, Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien, the former Minister for Posts and Telegraphs, who introduced the ban in the Republic and who, the day after my right hon. Friend's action, said:
Sinn Fein desperately need the access to broadcasting which they have in Great Britain which 'respectabilises' them and helps them in many ways. If that is denied them, their effort will be hurt"?
I accept the experience of Dr. Conor Cruise O'Brien in preference to the judgment of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland.
Finally, let us analyse what happens when the IRA commits one of its frequent outrages, which include the murder of ordinary people, and claims responsibility. The hon. Member for Mid-Ulster told us what happens. Within minutes of the report, a Sinn Fein spokesman appears on television explaining why it is necessary for the IRA to commit murders and encouraging support for his so-called cause. It would clearly be wrong if that were allowed to continue.
Nevertheless, democratic Governments need to consider long and hard before introducing measures of this kind, even when dealing with the enemies of democracy. We have done so and we have concluded that we can no longer justify giving terrorists and their apologists complete freedom of the airwaves to further their vile campaign and sow fear in the minds of ordinary viewers and listeners at home. We have therefore taken limited steps to limit that freedom, and in doing so we have received the unqualified support of the public in the United Kingdom.
On 19 October the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said:
the Labour party is dedicated to the defeat of terrorism"—[Official Report, 19 October 1988; Vol. 138, c.886.]
Those are fine words, but how is that dedication put into action? For six years now the Labour party has voted against the renewal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act. They deplore the announcements that courts may now draw inferences from the use of the right of silence, and tonight they will vote against these limited restrictions on direct access to the broadcasting media.
What, then, does the Labour party's dedication to the defeat of terrorism amount to? Words, words, words. Words have never defeated terrorism yet. Tough action, carefully targeted—unpalatable though it may be to some—is necessary, and that is what we recommend to the House tonight.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 244.

Division No. 467]
[12.11 am


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bidwell, Sydney


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Blair, Tony


Anderson, Donald
Blunkett, David


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Boateng, Paul


Armstrong, Hilary
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bradley, Keith


Barron, Kevin
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Beckett, Margaret
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Bermingham, Gerald
Buchan, Norman





Buckley, George J.
Lewis, Terry


Caborn, Richard
Litherland, Robert


Callaghan, Jim
Livingstone, Ken


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Livsey, Richard


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Loyden, Eddie


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McAllion, John


Clay, Bob
McAvoy, Thomas


Clelland, David
McCartney, Ian


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McGrady, Eddie


Cohen, Harry
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McKelvey, William


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McLeish, Henry


Corbett, Robin
Maclennan, Robert


Cousins, Jim
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McWilliam, John


Cryer, Bob
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunningham, Dr John
Mallon, Seamus


Darling, Alistair
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Meacher, Michael


Dobson, Frank
Meale, Alan


Doran, Frank
Michael, Alun


Douglas, Dick
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fatchett, Derek
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Faulds, Andrew
Mowlam, Marjorie


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Mullin, Chris


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Murphy, Paul


Fisher, Mark
Nellist, Dave


Flannery, Martin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Flynn, Paul
O'Brien, William


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
O'Neill, Martin


Foster, Derek
Parry, Robert


Foulkes, George
Patchett, Terry


Fraser, John
Pendry, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Pike, Peter L.


Galloway, George
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Primarolo, Dawn


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Quin, Ms Joyce


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Radice, Giles


Golding, Mrs Llin
Randall, Stuart


Gordon, Mildred
Redmond, Martin


Gould, Bryan
Richardson, Jo


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Robertson, George


Grocott, Bruce
Robinson, Geoffrey


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rogers, Allan


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Rooker, Jeff


Heffer, Eric S.
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Henderson, Doug
Ruddock, Joan


Hinchliffe, David
Sedgemore, Brian


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Sheerman, Barry


Holland, Stuart
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Short, Clare


Hoyle, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Snape, Peter


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Soley, Clive


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spearing, Nigel


Hume, John
Steel, Rt Hon David


Illsley, Eric
Steinberg, Gerry


Janner, Greville
Stott, Roger


John, Brynmor
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Turner, Dennis


Kirkwood, Archy
Vaz, Keith


Lambie, David
Wall, Pat


Lamond, James
Walley, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Leighton, Ron
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)






Winnick, David
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Mrs Audrey
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Wray, Jimmy
Mr. Ken Eastham.




NOES


Adley, Robert
Evennett, David


Aitken, Jonathan
Fallon, Michael


Alexander, Richard
Favell, Tony


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Allason, Rupert
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Alton, David
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Amess, David
Fishburn, John Dudley


Amos, Alan
Forman, Nigel


Arbuthnot, James
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forth, Eric


Ashby, David
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Aspinwall, Jack
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David
Franks, Cecil


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Freeman, Roger


Baldry, Tony
French, Douglas


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fry, Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gardiner, George


Beggs, Roy
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bellingham, Henry
Gill, Christopher


Bendall, Vivian
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Gregory, Conal


Boswell, Tim
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bottomley, Peter
Hawkins, Christopher


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bowis, John
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Brazier, Julian
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Bright, Graham
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hunter, Andrew


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Key, Robert


Browne, John (Winchester)
Kilfedder, James


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Burns, Simon
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Burt, Alistair
Kirkhope, Timothy


Butler, Chris
Knapman, Roger


Butterfill, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Carrington, Matthew
Knox, David


Carttiss, Michael
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cash, William
Lang, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Latham, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Lee, John (Pendle)


Chope, Christopher
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Lightbown, David


Colvin, Michael
Lilley, Peter


Conway, Derek
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lord, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Couchman, James
McCrea, Rev William


Cran, James
McCrindle, Robert


Curry, David
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dickens, Geoffrey
Madel, David


Dorrell, Stephen
Malins, Humfrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Mans, Keith


Dover, Den
Maples, John


Durant, Tony
Marland, Paul


Eggar, Tim
Marlow, Tony


Emery, Sir Peter
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)





Mates, Michael
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Maude, Hon Francis
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Shersby, Michael


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Miller, Sir Hal
Speed, Keith


Mills, Iain
Speller, Tony


Miscampbell, Norman
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin


Moate, Roger
Stanbrook, Ivor


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Stanley, Rt Hon John


Monro, Sir Hector
Stern, Michael


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stevens, Lewis


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Moss, Malcolm
Sumberg, David


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Needham, Richard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nelson, Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Neubert, Michael
Thornton, Malcolm


Nicholls, Patrick
Thurnham, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Trippier, David


Oppenheim, Phillip
Twinn, Dr Ian


Page, Richard
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Paice, James
Viggers, Peter


Patnick, Irvine
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Walden, George


Pawsey, James
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Ward, John


Portillo, Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Raffan, Keith
Warren, Kenneth


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wheeler, John


Redwood, John
Whitney, Ray


Renton, Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Riddick, Graham
Wiggin, Jerry


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wilkinson, John


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Wilshire, David


Roe, Mrs Marion
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Winterton, Nicholas


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wolfson, Mark


Rost, Peter
Wood, Timothy


Ryder, Richard
Yeo, Tim


Sayeed, Jonathan



Shaw, David (Dover)
Tellers for the Noes:


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Mr. Tom Sackville.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 243, Noes 179.

Division No. 468]
[12.24 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Aitken, Jonathan
Bevan, David Gilroy


Alexander, Richard
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Allason, Rupert
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Alton, David
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Amos, Alan
Bottomley, Peter


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Aspinwall, Jack
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Bright, Graham


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Baldry, Tony
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Batiste, Spencer
Browne, John (Winchester)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Beggs, Roy
Burns, Simon


Bellingham, Henry
Burt, Alistair


Bendall, Vivian
Butler, Chris






Butterfill, John
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Carrington, Matthew
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carttiss, Michael
Lightbown, David


Cash, William
Lilley, Peter


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Chapman, Sydney
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Chope, Christopher
Lord, Michael


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
McCrea, Rev William


Colvin, Michael
McCrindle, Robert


Conway, Derek
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Maclean, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
McLoughlin, Patrick


Couchman, James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Cox, Tom
Madel, David


Cran, James
Malins, Humfrey


Curry, David
Mans, Keith


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maples, John


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Marland, Paul


Day, Stephen
Marlow, Tony


Devlin, Tim
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Dorrell, Stephen
Mates, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maude, Hon Francis


Dover, Den
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Durant, Tony
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Eggar, Tim
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Emery, Sir Peter
Miller, Sir Hal


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Mills, Iain


Evennett, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Fallon, Michael
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Favell, Tony
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Moate, Roger


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Monro, Sir Hector


Fishburn, John Dudley
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Forman, Nigel
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Morrison, Sir Charles


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Forth, Eric
Moss, Malcolm


Fowler, Rt Hon Norman
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Franks, Cecil
Needham, Richard


Freeman, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


French, Douglas
Neubert, Michael


Fry, Peter
Nicholls, Patrick


Gale, Roger
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Gardiner, George
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Oppenheim, Phillip


Gill, Christopher
Page, Richard


Glyn, Dr Alan
Paice, James


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Patnick, Irvine


Goodlad, Alastair
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Pawsey, James


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Gregory, Conal
Portillo, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Raffan, Keith


Hawkins, Christopher
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Redwood, John


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Renton, Tim


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Riddick, Graham


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Hunter, Andrew
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Key, Robert
Rost, Peter


Kilfedder, James
Ryder, Richard


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Sayeed, Jonathan


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knox, David
Shersby, Michael


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lang, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Latham, Michael
Speed, Keith





Speller, Tony
Walden, George


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Ward, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Wheeler, John


Stevens, Lewis
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Widdecombe, Ann


Stewart, Ian (Hertfordshire N)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Wilkinson, John


Sumberg, David
Wilshire, David


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Winterton, Nicholas


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wolfson, Mark


Thornton, Malcolm
Wood, Timothy


Thurnham, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Townend, John (Bridlington)



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Tom Sackville.


Waddington, Rt Hon David





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Flannery, Martin


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Flynn, Paul


Anderson, Donald
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Foster, Derek


Armstrong, Hilary
Foulkes, George


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fraser, John


Barron, Kevin
Fyfe, Maria


Battle, John
Galloway, George


Beckett, Margaret
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Bidwell, Sydney
Golding, Mrs Llin


Blair, Tony
Gordon, Mildred


Blunkett, David
Gould, Bryan


Boateng, Paul
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Boyes, Roland
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bradley, Keith
Grocott, Bruce


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Harman, Ms Harriet


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Heffer, Eric S.


Buchan, Norman
Henderson, Doug


Buckley, George J.
Hinchliffe, David


Caborn, Richard
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Callaghan, Jim
Holland, Stuart


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hoyle, Doug


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Clay, Bob
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Clelland, David
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hume, John


Cohen, Harry
Illsley, Eric


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Janner, Greville


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
John, Brynmor


Corbett, Robin
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cousins, Jim
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Crowther, Stan
Kirkwood, Archy


Cryer, Bob
Lambie, David


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lamond, James


Cunningham, Dr John
Leadbitter, Ted


Darling, Alistair
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Lewis, Terry


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Litherland, Robert


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Livingstone, Ken


Dixon, Don
Livsey, Richard


Dobson, Frank
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Doran, Frank
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Douglas, Dick
Loyden, Eddie


Dunnachie, Jimmy
McAllion, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McAvoy, Thomas


Fatchett, Derek
McCartney, Ian


Faulds, Andrew
McGrady, Eddie


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Fisher, Mark
McKelvey, William






McLeish, Henry
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Maclennan, Robert
Robertson, George


McNamara, Kevin
Robinson, Geoffrey


McWilliam, John
Rogers, Allan


Madden, Max
Rooker, Jeff


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Mallon, Seamus
Ruddock, Joan


Marek, Dr John
Sedgemore, Brian


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Sheerman, Barry


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Martlew, Eric
Short, Clare


Meacher, Michael
Skinner, Dennis


Meale, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Michael, Alun
Snape, Peter


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Soley, Clive


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Spearing, Nigel


Morgan, Rhodri
Steel, Rt Hon David


Morley, Elliott
Steinberg, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Stott, Roger


Mowlam, Marjorie
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mullin, Chris
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Murphy, Paul
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Nellist, Dave
Turner, Dennis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Vaz, Keith


O'Brien, William
Wall, Pat


O'Neill, Martin
Walley, Joan


Parry, Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Patchett, Terry
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Pendry, Tom
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Pike, Peter L.
Winnick, David


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Primarolo, Dawn
Wray, Jimmy


Quin, Ms Joyce



Randall, Stuart
Tellers for the Noes:


Redmond, Martin
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Richardson, Jo
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House approves the Home Secretary's action in giving directions to the BBC and IBA to restrict the broadcasting of statements by Northern Ireland terrorist organisations and their apologists.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 2) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 1314), dated 27th July 1988, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th July, be approved. —[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITIONS

Housing Action Trusts

Mr. Bob Clay: I beg to ask leave to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Downhill, Town End Farm, Hylton Castle and Red House estates in my constituency. It reads:
To the Honourable Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled. The humble petition of residents of the estates of Downhill, Town End Farm, Hylton Castle and Red House, Sunderland in the county of Tyne and Wear showeth That in considering the Housing Bill, brought from this Honourable House on 28 June 1988, the Right Honourable Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled have through their Committee amended Clauses 60 and 61 of the said Bill to the effect that the Secretary of State shall not designate an area as one where a housing action trust should be established unless he had made the arrangements for the conduct of a ballot of tenants affected and the majority of tenants eligible to vote have approved his proposal.
The right Honourable Secretary of State has notified us that he is considering designating the areas in which we live as areas where housing action trusts should be established and we would welcome the opportunity to make our views on the matter known by way of ballot and for the proposed designation not to proceed if the majority of those of us eligible to vote do not approve the proposed designation.
Wherefore, your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House do accept, in considering the said Bill, the amendments made to the said clauses 60 and 61 by the Right Honourable the Lords Spiritual and Temporal in Parliament assembled.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray &amp;c.
This is not a random petition. It is signed by 5,829 of the 6,632 tenants who could conceivably have signed it. It was taken from door to door, with only those tenants affected by the housing action trust proposal being asked to sign. A total of 87·9 per cent. of all those eligible have signed. They are not opposing the HAT in principle but are simply asking that the amendment made in another place be upheld when it returns to this place so that the tenants have the right to vote on whether they wish to see a housing action trust established.
I am proud to present the petition. It shows the overwhelming view of my constituents who are affected. I agree with them that it is appalling that the Secretary of State has told them that they should not be able to vote on their own future because they may be misinformed and vote the wrong way. That goes well beyond housing policy and threatens democracy in Britain. I see no difference in principle between a Government saying that tenants may not vote on their future and saying that people may not vote to elect Members to the House or to councils.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that a petition is a petition, and that a long speech should not be attached to it. Perhaps he will now present the petition.

Mr. Clay: I shall bear in mind what you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker. I had almost concluded my remarks, and I shall now present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Radioactive Waste

12.39

Mr. Henry Bellingham: I rise to present a monster petition. It makes that presented by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay) look like a minnow.
The petition is signed by 48,326 constituents of mine, of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, North-East (Mr. Moss) and from surrounding constituencies. It was organised by the West Norfolk No to Nirex Campaign. The petition is headed "No to Nirex" and reads:
We the undersigned are strongly opposed to the dumping of nuclear waste in Norfolk and the Wash. Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Secretary of State for the Environment not to implement any such proposals. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray etc.
West Norfolk is on a long list of sites. If Nirex locates an installation in or around this part of East Anglia, the consequences for the environment will be devastating. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty. An installation would meet tremendous local opposition and would have the most dreadful and appalling consequences for the environment. I am glad to present the petition. I gather that if one breaks the Mace—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The same rule applies to this petition as to the earlier one. I should make it clear that speeches should not be attached to petitions.

Mr. Bellingham: I am proud to present the petition, which is probably the biggest to come from East Anglia.

To lie upon the Table.

Orders of the Day — Fluidised Bed Experiment, Grimethorpe

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Mr. Terry Patchett: I do not intend to take up too much time on this subject. It is apparent from the lack of attendance that we are all tired.
I appeal to the Minister to reconsider the financing of the pressurised fluidised bed combustion project at Grimethorpe. I may have a strange ally in my appeal because the Prime Minister has been converted to the protection of the environment. She believes in nuclear energy, but the petition that has just been presented showed one of the problems with nuclear energy—nuclear waste. I appreciate that the Prime Minister is now concerned about acid rain and the ozone layer. The project at Grimethorpe has an answer to those problems.
An experiment has been under way for some years. It began as a joint project between West Germany and America. Each of those countries has gone its different way, but they are interested in financing further experiments. Sweden markets power stations that are suitable for the Third world and other countries. Britain leads in clean-burn technology, but we have a history of allowing good ideas to go abroad. It would be deeply regrettable if we were to allow this good idea to go abroad. My concern is shared by the chairman of British Coal, Sir Robert Haslam. In a letter to me, he said:
The joint CEGB-British Coal project, with input from the US, has been particularly successful in solving a number of outstanding problems and PSBC design studies show that the technology produces lower cost electricity than other systems for power stations below 500 MW. However, the CEGB feel they must concentrate their resources on improving the technology for the larger sets of 900 MW. Although the emerging privatised distribution companies will certainly be more interested in a smaller higher efficiency unit with short delivery times, most of these will be gas-fired unless this scheme is proved.
There is at present no UK collaborator with money to invest in the next stage at Grimethorpe. We certainly cannot carry this project ourselves as we aim to break even this year and are required to produce a 10 per cent. return on capital within a highly competitive coal market. This is particularly frustrating since there now exists a potential to develop an even higher efficiency version of the PFBC called a topping cycle—a uniquely British invention. With this in mind we have an application with the Department of Energy to support a £38 million four-year programme to develop the technology.
We can all recognise, as the board does, the tremendous potential of the project. It is sad that the only response from the Secretary of State for Energy is that perhaps it is ready for private investment. Because of the confused picture on the privatisation of the electricity industry, we doubt whether private industry will show an interest at this stage.
As the Department of Energy has demanded that British Coal break even by a certain date, it has limited the finances that British Coal can invest. There is a two-edged sword hanging over the future of the fluidised bed combustion project. The Minister has had to rely on reports because he has not been to see the project. If he did, he would recognise its tremendous potential. I should be grateful if he would speak to the people working there, who will be very disappointed if the project cannot continue. Unless a funding package can be found the establishment will have to close by March 1989, with the


loss of considerable expertise in advance coal combustion and the loss of the equipment and infrastructure, valued at £38 million, which support the development.
I do not think that anyone needs convincing of the tremendous potential of the project, so it is a shame that the Minister is prepared to hang back and allow the technology to go to other countries. Indeed, at some future date we might have to buy back that technology for use at power stations in this country. That is farcical.
Although we recognise the Minister's enthusiasm for nuclear energy, the amount of money required for the project is insignificant compared with that required to dispose of nuclear waste. With 200 years of coal reserves in Britain, it is farcical to proceed in such a way. We could have tremendously improved, efficient, clean-burn, coal-fired stations that could help to alleviate the problems of acid rain and damage to the ozone layer.
I ask the Minister to reconsider the matter and to find some way to fund the project—perhaps jointly between British Coal and the CEGB. For goodness sake, let us not lose this advanced technology to other countries, as has happened in the past.

Mr. Eric Illsley: I wish to support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett). Although the pressurised fluidised bed project is based in Grimethorpe, which is in my hon. Friend's constituency, it also affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay).
The project has been very successful. It is based on clean-burn technology for the burning of coal to produce electricity. The decision to withdraw funding from the project is somewhat shortsighted, not only because of the continued threat to jobs and the community in that area, but because of the mounting pressure both in Britain and throughout the world for more environmentally acceptable methods of burning fossil fuels and producing electricity. Grimethorpe has already suffered because of British Coal's past attitudes, particularly its rationalisation programme, which created job losses in the surrounding area. It is interesting that British Coal moved its Barnsley area headquarters out of the village to Allerton Bywater, 30 miles away, which also had a considerable impact on the area.
The closure of the pressurised fluidised bed project seems illogical in view of the Department of Energy's admission that cleaner coal technology is needed. We must first consider the greenhouse effect—the effect of the warming of the earth and its atmosphere, the artificial heating that will threaten polar regions, and, in future generations, the surface area that is currently at sea level.
A recent conference in Toronto drew attention to that matter. It stated that to do nothing would be the worst possible course of action. The conference would dismally regard the decision to discontinue funding for the pressurised fluidised bed project, which has achieved methods of cleanly burning fossil fuels in a manner that is acceptable to the environment lobby. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East has mentioned, nuclear power stations will not be the answer to environment problems.
The privatisation of electricity will threaten the future of the nuclear power industry. Two research programmes

have already been discontinued by the Minister's Department. The future for energy systems involves the environmentally clean burning of coal and fossil fuels. I, too, urge the Minister to consider ways of continuing funding for the pressurised fluidised bed project in Grimethorpe rather than allowing it to fall by the wayside, to be resurrected at a later date by other countries and perhaps by people in this country who will regard such technology as the way forward.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Michael Spicer): I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Barnsley, East (Mr. Patchett) on raising in this brief debate the future of fluidised bed combustion technology. He has argued, as has the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley)—I notice that the hon. Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. McKay) is also present—the case for Government support for the continuation of a programme of work at the Grimethorpe facility in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Both hon. Gentlemen are right that for some years it has been clear that fluidised bed combustion offers the possibility significantly to lower nitrogen oxide emissions more than conventional methods of burning coal. There is also the added benefit that sulphur emissions can be substantially reduced by adding limestone or dolomite to the bed. There are other potential benefits in terms of the high rates of heat transfer within the fluidised bed.
With the rise in oil prices in the 1970s, the International Energy Agency understandably put forward proposals for research into oil substitutes. One such programme was the Grimethorpe project, in which the participants were the United Kingdom, represented by British Coal, the Federal Republic of West Germany, and the United States.
Contrary to much public impression, Grimethorpe is not and was never set up to be a power station. As the hon. Gentleman has probably implicitly acknowledged, it is the largest pressurised fluidised bed combustion research and development facility in the world. The British Government provided £17 million out of the eventual total project cost of £60 million. British Coal provided the balance of the United Kingdom share, together with a substantial contribution in kind.
The IEA programme was in fact almost complete when the miners' strike of March 1984 intervened and persuaded the American and German participants to transfer the facility to British Coal ownership. After the miners' strike, work continued at Grimethorpe with a £28 million programme funded by British Coal and the CEGB. The objective was to solve some of the problems already identified and to move the technology closer to the point where it could be developed commercially.
That programme was supplemented by work valued at around £10 million under contract from the United States Department of Energy and the Electric Power Research Institute, the United States utility's co-operative research and development organisation. At the end of this phase, problems relevant to the use of the technology in commercial operation were resolved, and a body of design data and information was produced which can now be used with confidence by engineering concerns wishing to develop and exploit the technology.
I wish to make two points on the future of Grimethorpe and its technology. First of all, pressurised fluidised bed


combustion is only one of several ways in which coal can be used to generate electricity while at the same time meeting high environmental standards. In 1981 my Department's Advisory Council on Research and Development, ACORD, commissioned a programme to assess the economics of clean power generation by advanced coal-based combined cycles, compared with a conventional coal-fired power station with flue gas desulphurisation.
The programme was managed jointly by my Department, the CEGB, British Coal and British Gas, and embraced both gasification and fluidised bed combustion technologies. A series of design studies were undertaken by experienced engineering contractors, and the results are summarised in energy paper No. 56 published in August of this year. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House, and I arranged for a copy to be sent to the hon. Member for Barnsley, East.
The most detailed assessments were made of pressurised fluidised bed combustion, using data derived mainly from the joint British Coal and CEGB programme, and also of the gasification combined cycle plant, using information from the 500 tonnes per day British Gas-Lurgi gasifier programme at Westfield.
The conclusions of these studies indicated that, for the near term at least, none of the fluidised bed designs offered an advantage over the planned conventional 900 MW electrical pulverised coal-fired units fitted with flue gas desulphurisation and a low nitrogen oxide combustion system. It was these conclusions that caused the CEGB to look again at its involvement in the Grimthorpe project. As a result, late last year, the CEGB decided not to participate in any further programme beyond that to which it was already committed, and it withdrew from further support for the work at Grimethorpe.
A further factor in that decision may have been that an integrated gasification combined cycle plant design based on the British Gas-Lurgi slagging gasifier now shows promise of being able to compete with conventional plant with flue gas desulphurisation at sizes of current interest to the CEGB, assuming continuing improvements in gas turbine efficiency and a market for the sulphur by-product.
The first point then is that there are competing technologies to fluidised bed combustion capable of meeting and possibly improving on its performance.

Mr. Allen McKay: Taking the Minister's argument into consideration, is it not a fact that fluidised beds still have the advantage of their huge heat transference ability? That is far more beneficial to the environment than the other matters mentioned. Has it not proceeded so far that field trials should be carried out in which the Government should play a part?

Mr. Spicer: I agree that this technology has advantages, and I want to say how it might develop. I am not arguing that this technology does not have its applications.
The second point I want to make about the future of fluidised bed combustion is that it can be conceived of as largely a proven technology. We have the technology. It is not a question of having to research into new technology. Following on from the hon. Gentleman's point, the question for the future is one of the rate at which it would be taken up commercially. It is not a question of privatisation; it is the application of the technology by whomever applies it. I certainly know of one private power company which is introducing it—I suspect very effectively —in the United States. I understand that industry in Sweden and Germany—the hon. Member for Barnsley, East mentioned Sweden—has shown a similar interest in the technology as that shown by the United States. I believe that a privatised electricity supply industry may result in similar innovations over here.
What certainly seems to be clear is that many private companies considering entry to the power generation market are thinking in terms of plant considerably smaller than those planned by the CEGB, and there may be opportunities to exploit pressurised fluidised bed combustion in that context.
Certainly the joint design studies that I have mentioned, which were sponsored by the Department, showed that at smaller plant sizes, around 400 MW electrical, the pressurised fluidised bed plant is potentially competitive with conventional coal-fired stations with emission control. However, the technology that power-generating companies choose is a matter for those companies alone, and their choice will be governed by the economics of operation and by the experience of others.
The Government's position with respect to the Grimethorpe facility is therefore clear and has been made clear on a number of occasions recently. We believe that the next stage of work is near-commercial, and that decisions on whether and in what manner the work should proceed are best taken by those who stand to benefit from its development. I am confident that the results obtained from the Grimethorpe project, which have been heavily financed with public moneys, will be of great value to any industrial organisation wishing to exploit this technology. I have already mentioned that this technology is being exploited commercially in other countries.
In summary, the Grimethorpe facility is the property and responsibility of British Coal. It is for British Coal, and for any partners that it may interest in the project, to determine whether the pay-off from continuing research at Grimethorpe will exceed the cost of doing so. However, in the meantime, technology at a certain level exists, and I believe that in a privatised industry it may be that that technology will be applied. It is therefore a matter for the owner—British Coal—to decide whether to press ahead and develop the technology.
Beyond that, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman any assurances except that I agree that it is a good technology. It is a proven technology and it is now a question of its being taken up by commercial power companies and put to the use that they think fit.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at four minutes past One o'clock.